|
(dear mods you can change the title if you want to, but please don't lock the thread these are actual problems with the game and im not mindlessly complaining. I also main Terran and off race Zerg so please don't say it's biased against Terran, I play the race and i know that there are problems with it. Just because it's a balance thread doesn't mandate an auto lock especially with the reasoning in the changes. )
After reading decemvrie two threads and how horrendously off he is, I decided to take my own spin on the issues. His changes are just numerical balance changes when the real flaws of the game run much deeper than that. Balance changes are fine and dandy, but they're only helpful when you have solid game design in the first place, which Starcraft 2 does not.
Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile. I honestly see where Blizzard was coming from, but honestly they implemented it terribly. The only time Zerg can be aggressive with the current implementation of creep is when they have a definite advantage over the opponent. You cannot harass or do quick counter attacks with anything that are not speedlings or mutalisks and I'm not even gonna go into Hydras.
The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but instead of mobility bonus it should be HP Regen. This is because it promotes aggressive play and makes creep a place to fall back to after an attack instead of a mandatory TO attack. On creep speed is now the same as off creep speed (can be adjusted for certain units)
The Versatility of the Tech Lab This is what is breaking Terran right now. For 50 minerals 25 gas and 25 seconds Terran opens EVERY SINGLE UNIT out of a production building instead of incredibly niche units. This makes it so it's impossible to accurately scout or predict what Terran is doing and makes it impossible to punish Terran as they can just tech switch anyway. When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY with no punishing factor its terrible game design. Terran can tech switch instantly with nothing that punishes them from doing it. This is why TvZ is broken in the early game.
The fix to this is to increase tech lab build time to 35 seconds and increase the cost to 50/50 AND bring back the academy to open up reaper tech tree and certain infantry upgrades. This makes Terran have to go a distinct tech tree for bio and makes it easier to have a strategy ready to combat it. I also would enjoy Banshee's cloak being a fusion core upgrade, but thats overkill~
The Power of the Marauder Honestly I think the marauders are an awesome unit and amazing to play with (terran main) but i can admit that they are overpowered in the early game and in certain aspects. First off marauders give free map control for the whole early game and forces protoss to go tier 2 instantly which eliminates FE play for Toss while letting Terran doing anything they want. The second problem is there upgrades which makes marauders into super heroes. Concussive shells disallows any micro from the opponent and punishes skirmishes and harassment. Stim and marauders is just ridiculous in how fast marauders can kill anything armored, how fast they become (lol synergy), and how little drawbacks are there from using it. I'm not gonna even get into marauder drops which are completely stupid (again im a terran main)
To fix the marauder you have to look at the problems with bio upgrades. I'm gonna steal an idea from Gretorp (check out balance suggestions from Xeris's thread from MLG Raleigh) which is to combine Combat shield into a marine and marauder health upgrade while nerfing marauders starting hp to 100. This is to promote distinctive bio upgrades while punishing Stim timing pushes and makes marauders easier to handle in the early game. As well as this concussive shells and combat shield are now unlocked from the academy. Buildings also shouldn't be armored btw~
Battle Dynamics I'm gonna quote an amazing article "Under The Microscope" made by Saracen who puts it into words better than i ever could. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=135462
Dynamics. It’s what makes Brood War tick. Even though the number of viable units in each match up is relatively small (you likely would see the exact same units every game), the amount of outcomes is enormous. The way each unit interacts on the battlefield, the way each player must exploit these units to their fullest potential gives Brood War its immense depth and longevity. It’s not something just anyone can master. It requires smart thinking and quick and accurate hands, everything we admire in a progamer. But it takes the hands of a god to play this game to perfection, and a battle between gods is so damn beautiful to watch.
Back in Brood War, you had a nice counter interaction between clearly overpowered spells – irradiate and dark swarm, EMP, stasis field, and recall, psionic storm and, well, storm dodging and mutalisk sniping. Fast forward to SC2 and the emergence of autocasting, and the dynamics and unit potential are changed entirely. First, many spell interactions are no longer possible. Storm dodging is a thing of the past, as a pack of templar can deplete their energy in rapid succession faster than enemy units are physically able to move out of the damage radius. Spells like fungal growth suffer a similar fate. And then there are the new spells. Force field is a prime example of a spell that shuts down dynamics instead of promoting them, because, aside from a high-tech massive unit ramming into them, there is literally no way for an opponent to micro against force field. The success or failure of the battle, then (especially in the early and mid game), depends solely on a single player, and how well he places his force fields, while the other player can only sit back and watch. Compare this to even a terribly underused spell like disruption web, which forced more micro from the opponent, as well as created a positional advantage, and the difference between the two games is clear. And, with spells so much easier to handle, it’s blatantly obvious that a nerf is needed. But with the nerf to spells comes a terrible price – a single spell caster’s unit potential is decreased considerably. Again, look at high templar. No amount of SC2 high templar will ever be able to match the devastation and havoc Jangbi's few could wreak on a tank line. No amount of infestors will change the a game as much as GGplay's defilers did versus Iris. And with the dumbing-down of spell casters, we lose one more important thing: key timing windows. Remember in TvZ when all the Zerg had to do was hold out until a single ability finished before he could turn the entire game around? Remember how nail-bitingly exciting it was to watch those old Savior games where he would stall and stall until the very last second? Or the hydra bust that comes right before storm finishes? Or the siege mode and mines that come out just in time to stop the early Protoss aggression? Such hit-or-miss precision, such tense anticipation is no more.
A similar phenomenon exists with the reduction of splash damage. We have gone from the lurker to the baneling, from the corsair to the phoenix, from the reaver to the immortal and colossus, from the spider mine to the, well, nothing, and from the archon to the pitiful ball of a unit that goes by the same name. In Brood War, splash damage was a double edged sword. It forced micro from both you and your opponent (manually targeting to maximize damage versus splitting your army to minimize damage), but it also exponentially grew in power, such that a critical mass was with ranged splash units existed at surprisingly small numbers. The point? Splashing units in small numbers are great in that they encourage battle dynamics, but a large number of splashing units is hard to balance. So, with SC2, the units lose much of their splashing ability and effectiveness to compensate for easier control and smart AI. And even then, you can still see the tremendous power of splash units en masse. Just take a look at all the “Terran mech imba” threads that clutter the strategy forum. For balance’s sake, there’s no way you could argue against Blizzard’s decision of watering down splash damage. But with that decision, you will no longer bet on how many kills a reaver harass will net, or watch one of the most brilliant timing attacks in Starcraft history.
Honestly to fix this would require a new thread and a complete re working of certain spells so I'm not even going to go into it.
The Maps The overarching flaw in the game. When you're playing the game you would think the thing you play on would be balanced and well designed, well Blizzard disagrees with you. The maps are too small and too narrow which is what Starcraft plays terribly on. Blizzard also seems to avoid having alternate routes to the enemy, all though ive got to give credit as they finally implemented more ways to flank on Delta Quadrant and Xel Naga Caverns. However they continue to implement wide open naturals which pretty much kills early economic builds forcing more and more 1 base play. Pretty much there really really bad and the community can't do anything about it because blizzard implemented the worst custom game and map making system possible.
Implementing classic BW maps would honestly be the best fix. Having a working map making system that would allow map makers to get there map on ladder would also be amazing.
If your read through the whole thing, congratulations! I was thinking of discussing the warp in mechanic, but then I saw how large it is and i was like eh ill save it for another day. There are specific problems with the game, but these broad flaws are really the true root of balance problems.
|
A lot of very good thoughts listed here. Especially that regarding the Tech Lab. I had not thought about it so much as of yet but the transition in terms of Terran tech between BW and SC2 is absolutely huge, and there does seem to be quite a disparity between terran tech paths and those of protoss and zerg.
I think your post puts in to words the frustration that a lot of TL'ers are having at this point in time and I remain faithful in blizzard to make an honest attempt to fix these issues.
The game is still very young, but issues do need to be pointed out along with evidence and I think you're post does an exceedingly good job with that.
Very nice write up. =]
|
nothing new here that hasn't already been discussed
also what's your rank?
|
United States889 Posts
On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile. I honestly see where Blizzard was coming from, but honestly they implemented it terribly. The only time Zerg can be aggressive with the current implementation of creep is when they have a definite advantage over the opponent. You cannot harass or do quick counter attacks with anything that are not speedlings or mutalisks and I'm not even gonna go into Hydras.
The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but instead of mobility bonus it should be HP Regen. This is because it promotes aggressive play and makes creep a place to fall back to after an attack instead of a mandatory TO attack. On creep speed is now the same as off creep speed (can be adjusted for certain units)
I don't understand your argument here at all. It's one thing to say Zerg ought to be faster and another to make some sort of twisted assertion that a speed boost on creep is a flaw(?).
It also doesn't make sense to say it's a problem if it permits Zerg to do something else. Honestly, if Zerg was forced to be aggressive all the time, I'd much more easily conclude that that is the flaw than anything else. There may be better ways to play a race, but every option ought to be available. It doesn't help, or make anything more interesting, to limit options. Expanding options is almost always the better choice.
As said before, creep doesn't make Zerg immobile, which you seem to be trying to say somehow. It just makes them more mobile elsewhere. Right now, there is hardly any combo more mobile than muta/ling. Hydra roach is a little clumsy, but with speed upgrade on the roaches it's better. Ultras are wayyy faster than they were in BW, and they can actually keep up okay with the rest of your army. Hydras are the lone unit that's exceedingly slow by comparison, and that is something that can be compensated for. By that I mean, I basically don't agree with anything you're saying about Zerg's mobility.
In BW, you really couldn't do speedy things with anything other than mutas and lings anyway, so your point about harrassment is a little silly. How many units should Zerg be able to harass with? In what way? Those are important questions. Honestly, too, speed roaches and speed banelings can move really fast compared to some opposing compositions.
|
When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY
Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell
|
I agree. I would rank them:
#1 Maps (need to be more open space in middle, larger) #2 Seige Tank Overkill (this is what made BW positioning and unit control so dynamic) #3 High Ground Mechanic #4 Marauder Strength/tech (I think Terran need another tech building or two in general, it's too easy for them to tech)
|
On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:Show nested quote +When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell
But Stalkers and Zealots don't INSTANTLY vaporize armored/light units. Reapers counter Zerg early game pretty hard, and when controlled, can deal damage to Roaches. Marauders, well, they annihilate what the Reapers can't easily kill.
When all else fails, Marines are there to pick up the slack.
But his point is that for 50/25 you get two insanely good (situational, maybe) units, whereas Toss have to spend 150 and wait much longer for Stalkers, or Zerg 150 and wait for Roaches.
|
very nice effort in ur write up, good argument snd nicde thoughts, i do disagree with a few of ur points, such as the psi storm for instance, its not hard for a stimmed bio ball to get out of a storm at all, its quite frustrating for me as a protoss player actually as to how well they can dodge them or quickly get out of them.
but im not sure about how i feel about the constant references u make to SC:BW. yes it was a great and balanced game, but sc2 is a new game, with different mechanics, and different styles, and its still young and we need to let it evolved and flourish, and point out flaws and imbalances to blizzard in the months and years to come as we discover the game, and not compare it to broodwar, the past is the past and i think its best if we ignore broodwar when it comes to terms of balancing sc2.
|
I'm glad people are finally starting to concentrate on the real source of the early game imbalance problem. The fact of the matter is that the tech-lab on barracks simultaneously enables very early production at minimal cost of a cliff-jumping extremely mobile unit that owns light, a very high-hp durable tank unit that devastates armored units and buildings, and a cheap all-purpose versatile high-dps unit that can attack ground or air. Relative to what is available to the other races in the early game, this variety is insane.
How this design was allowed to persist all through beta is beyond me. It seems to me like Blizzard could have made their jobs a lot easier by trying to alter this dynamic instead of the nightmare it has been to try and balance around it.
|
k yeah terran techswitch is fast but it's not faster than zerg or protoss. protoss basically their entire core army comes out of warpgates and whatever they want to supplement that army they go on a little side techpatch. zerg you build one tech structure and then you can build as much of that unit as you want out of your hatcheries. you can instantly go from 200/200 roaches to 200/200 mutas at any point given you got the ONE tech structure required. where terrans tehc is weak is in that if they produce like 7 rax or 7 factories or 7 starports they've commited to doing a strategy with those buildings and if you've produced the counters then they are gunna be hard pressed to get enough of different tech to suprise you. and liek you said switching from banshee tech to any other air unit. im assuming then vikings or ravens as cattlebruisers DO have a seperate tech structure. well anything that comes out of a starports i garantee sucks horribly against hydras and mutas. a strength ive used when playing zerg in beta was going ling muta seeing the terran overcompensate on hellions or marines and then getting istantly getting 14 larva of roaches after my initial push and then burrow moving them under his army and destroying him witht hata nd the mutas overhead. cuz my tech switch was just so fast cuz i built ONE building.
however i do agree that marauders are too strong and i think tanks need to be stronger personally. i think marauders should be 90 HP OR not have stim. tanks i think should be: siege mode damage 35+35 vs armored basically similar to their BW damage makes them still 3 shot roaches and hydras but allows them not to get completely steamrolled when ultras pop out. i also thinkg they should be 2 supply and 100 gas cuz eventually big maps will come out in which it'll be impossible to mech on vs P and Z's mobility. i think their HP shoudl be 150 again so that immortals 3 shot them but with tanks damage of 35+35 without shields the immortals can get 3 shotted too. i think siege mode cost should increase to 150/150. and splash radius shoudl be ever so slightly lowered. tanks having no overkill is overrated imo because in my eyes it makes up for the fact that tanks no longer have spider mines to do additional splash and also cover for them.
|
On September 02 2010 02:19 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile. I honestly see where Blizzard was coming from, but honestly they implemented it terribly. The only time Zerg can be aggressive with the current implementation of creep is when they have a definite advantage over the opponent. You cannot harass or do quick counter attacks with anything that are not speedlings or mutalisks and I'm not even gonna go into Hydras.
The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but instead of mobility bonus it should be HP Regen. This is because it promotes aggressive play and makes creep a place to fall back to after an attack instead of a mandatory TO attack. On creep speed is now the same as off creep speed (can be adjusted for certain units)
I don't understand your argument here at all. It's one thing to say Zerg ought to be faster and another to make some sort of twisted assertion that a speed boost on creep is a flaw(?). It also doesn't make sense to say it's a problem if it permits Zerg to do something else. Honestly, if Zerg was forced to be aggressive all the time, I'd much more easily conclude that that is the flaw than anything else. There may be better ways to play a race, but every option ought to be available. It doesn't help, or make anything more interesting, to limit options. Expanding options is almost always the better choice. As said before, creep doesn't make Zerg immobile, which you seem to be trying to say somehow. It just makes them more mobile elsewhere. Right now, there is hardly any combo more mobile than muta/ling. Hydra roach is a little clumsy, but with speed upgrade on the roaches it's better. Ultras are wayyy faster than they were in BW, and they can actually keep up okay with the rest of your army. Hydras are the lone unit that's exceedingly slow by comparison, and that is something that can be compensated for. By that I mean, I basically don't agree with anything you're saying about Zerg's mobility. In BW, you really couldn't do speedy things with anything other than mutas and lings anyway, so your point about harrassment is a little silly. How many units should Zerg be able to harass with? In what way? Those are important questions. Honestly, too, speed roaches and speed banelings can move really fast compared to some opposing compositions.
Zerg is supposed to be mobile, and right now they are mobile while on creep. However, Creep acts as more of a limiter than a bonus really as the game is clearly balanced with zerg units having their on creep speed during a fight. Without the creep speed, every unit besides the speedlings and mutalisks get kited into oblivion.
It is plain out hard to be aggressive as zerg until your creep is spread. There is a reason why every zerg goes Muta/Ling/Bling nearly every game... Creep is a handicap because a core unit like the Hydralisk requires it 100% of the time. Imagine if Protoss players could only use stalkers in their own base, or maybe with a cutesy suicide drop every once and awhile.
Quite honestly, when is the last time a zerg player pushed you at a difficult to manage time? Or for that matter, when is the last time you've even seen a Hydra used in higher level play?
|
Uhm, I think the OP needs to revisit a number of these things and try actually seeing things in action, because the way you present these things makes it look like you haven't done any of that at all. Your theories are full of holes and you're trying to find issues that don't exist.
Have you discussed these things with pro players and tried to figure out why Blizzard have these things implemented? Cause most of this has already been addressed.
Just a little hint - things aren't necessarily always as they immediately seem. There might be a little deeper thought behind Blizzard's decisions than what you seem to assume.
The Art of War is a great book to read, I recommend it to anyone regardless. It's even a suitable book for skimming, so you don't need to read it word-by-word.
|
I honestly doubt we'll see any major core mechanic changes at all. We will see a few new units and upgrades over the next 2 expansions, but some sort of massive rework is out of the question.
Tiny changes cause uproars on these forums and the official ones, so imagine if Blizzard would say:"Sorry,we fucked up with the marauder, so we're removing it from MP, but here's a nice firebat as a consolation prize."
I for one have faith that Blizzard is gonna implement well though out changes and not just start throwing patches up every week in response to fads.
|
On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:Show nested quote +When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell
Good. Then make the tech lab match my cybernetics core costs.
|
Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins.
|
Oh boy, here we go again - at this rate, I wonder if it might not be advantages to implement a balances/suggestions board at some point . Anyways, interesting observations OP, but like you've noted, it's really nothing that really hasn't been said already. And the fact that you have to call out decemvrie specifically makes this feel like all a big dick-waving contest.
|
Honestly I think it's mainly the maps, play on the iCCup maps and you will see... =P
|
You have very good insights. I perfectly agree with you. The problem of SC2 is not the numbers but the design. Who would have thought that a game with 2010 technology would be inferior in mechanics to a 1998 game.... But I guess that has smth to do with the absolute brilliance of BW which SC2 is merely trying to imitate.
All I can say is, I hope the devs are listening to you and that your suggestion does not get burried under tons of filthy QQ.
We can only hope that for HotS some of the mechanics would be revisited and then the game can evolve. In the meantime, given that the map-editor is so strong, personally I would encourage new map makers of creating new mechanics that could be revised by TL and maybe give blizzard an idea of what we like.
|
On September 02 2010 02:57 GGzerG wrote: Honestly I think it's mainly the maps, play on the iCCup maps and you will see... =P
agreed
|
Hyrule18780 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell Good. Then make the tech lab match my cybernetics core costs. Only if we get drop pods/warp in like we can in campaign.
|
If creep wasn't so easy to stop I wouldn't mind it's current implementation, but when a scan or an observer can turn a creep highway you've been working on all game into nothing by a moving across the map it's a little ridiculous no? Creep feels mandatory, without it you are at an extreme disadvantage if you are using any other units besides muta/ling.
|
It seems OP is doing too much theory crafting and less playing the game. I play all three races on a basic level (am a lot better with T and P than Z) and I have to disagree with a lot of stuff the OP says. The only issues in the game that I currently feel are -
(1) Early zerg scouting n TvZ - Its very hard for zerg to prepare for reapers and banshees without messing up econ. However, unless you are facing a crazy good T, 99% of people on the ladder don't have the mechanics to effectively pull off the reaper build. Aside from this and siege tanks on some maps, TvZ seems fine and Muta/ling/bling is a bitch to deal with.
(2) Stim Maruder drops - Ok I have to give this to the OP. Stim marauders sniping buildings is insane. Those who have been on the receiving end of this know exactly what I am talking about.
Also the tech lab switching allows terran to open up one bit of evertything in his tech in tree in the first few minutes of his game but after that T has the hardest time switching his army composition. With P and Z it is way easier to switch around your army composition to something more effective. In fact Toss is the easiest. They volume of tech support required is little and you on 2-3 bases you can get some of everything. A ball of gateway+colo+storm+some voids is very hard to deal with.
|
On September 02 2010 02:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell Good. Then make the tech lab match my cybernetics core costs.
You do realize that terran has to upgrade to tech lab for every barracks right? It adds up.
|
The tech lab complaint is pretty weak tbh. Yes i can switch between reapers and marauders anytime i want to, protoss can do exactly the same with sentries/stalkers/zealots.
Out of a starport a tech lab opens up 2 units, one of which is only a detector.
I think people are trying to directly compare races, which doesnt work since the races are all so different. When a protoss does 2 gate cyber/robo i dont complain that the protoss can now make 6 units. It's just part of scouting.
I'd really hate it if each unit required a specific building. I'd be stuck with that build for some time, and my opponent would know exactly what i was doing, which doesnt really sound that fun. Yes i know that zerg has 1 building per unit but please dont compare 2 different races, because you cant.
I agree with the maps being unbalanced though, Kulas especially.
|
On September 02 2010 02:57 GGzerG wrote: Honestly I think it's mainly the maps, play on the iCCup maps and you will see... =P My thoughts exactly.
|
Who said anything about Hydralisks moving the same speed as Stalkers off creep? I said that it is ridiculous that such a core army unit is creep bound. I think a lot would be changed if they just made a subtle change in making Hydras gain the same movement bonus on creep as everyone else, and just be slightly faster naturally (IE, the creep modifier be turned back to 1.3 as apposed to 1.5).
As of now, the Hydra moves at 2.25 off creep (same speed as the Siege Tank.) and 3.375 on creep. Just keep the on creep speed 3.375, and make their normal speed 2.596 that way they can actually pull of things like flanks, and be effective at doing things such as retreating, pushing, or even just simple micro-dancing. This change still allows units that are meant to be faster than the Hydra (such as stalkers, Reapers, or stimmed MM for example) to outspeed it by a wide margin, it just becomes much less creep bound.
|
give it 10 years. when every timing BO is polished to an absurd amount. and even then each matchup/BO change with each map. as an above poster stated, play on an iccup map. its odd how similar the game gets to broodwar on a BW made map
|
On September 02 2010 02:32 JHancho wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell But Stalkers and Zealots don't INSTANTLY vaporize armored/light units. Reapers counter Zerg early game pretty hard, and when controlled, can deal damage to Roaches. Marauders, well, they annihilate what the Reapers can't easily kill. When all else fails, Marines are there to pick up the slack. But his point is that for 50/25 you get two insanely good (situational, maybe) units, whereas Toss have to spend 150 and wait much longer for Stalkers, or Zerg 150 and wait for Roaches.
But for 150 you get the tech for all your wargates, you don't need additional production, you just need the gateways to produce.
to pump 3 rax marauder vs 3 gate stalkers you need 150/75 of techlabs, i don't really see the problem.
|
On September 02 2010 03:07 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 02:54 JinDesu wrote:On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell Good. Then make the tech lab match my cybernetics core costs. You do realize that terran has to upgrade to tech lab for every barracks right? It adds up.
This is what most are not realizing. For example, a 5 Rax Reaper build requires 5 Tech labs - that's 250 minerals and 125 gas altogether.
|
On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins.
Your underlying assumption here is entirely false, though it's logical and easy to make this mistake, and unless you're well versed in statistical analysis there is no fault in making it.
The more games that are played the more closely every race match-up will get to %50 split, this is because of the matchmaking system. Let's go ahead and assume (no agreement needed, it's just an assumption) that Zerg is underpowered, and Terran is overpowered and Protoss is exactly in the middle.
As more and more games are played the average Gold Zerg player will be somewhat better than the average gold Protoss player, and considerably better than the average gold terran player. Now the matchmaking system will continue to pit these three differently distributed players against each other, and while the Zerg is underpowered, they will split games with the Terran, and with the Protoss, and with other Zerg players because that is how the MATCHMAKING system works.
So in order to know if a race is over-powered you would need more data than just the distribution of wins between races, you'd need some model of skill in each match-up, so you could see what the average win distribution is between each race AND the average skill of each player is.
If you took APM (a poor model, but something to work with), and then said APM is the sole indicator of skill, you could then take the average APM of the terran and zerg, if they were equal, and the 50% split still occurred, then you would be able to conclude that terran and zerg are equally matched.
*keep in mind, I made some big assumptions to make my point, and I do not think using APM as the value of skill is a good idea, nor an accurate one
|
Nightfall...those stats dont mean anything... the matchmaking system tries to match you to people who will give you a 50% win ratio. What you are saying only proves the matchmaking system works and nothing about balance.
But on topic, I think this is an excellent post, I'm a zerg main and I really wish that the creep mechanic would change in some regard, either let it spread faster or tweak what kind/amount of bonus it gives you. Also, scouting terran is such a pain due to ambiguity of tech labs, wall offs, and marines' fetish for shooting ovies
|
On September 02 2010 02:45 Zoroth wrote: Uhm, I think the OP needs to revisit a number of these things and try actually seeing things in action, because the way you present these things makes it look like you haven't done any of that at all. Your theories are full of holes and you're trying to find issues that don't exist.
Have you discussed these things with pro players and tried to figure out why Blizzard have these things implemented? Cause most of this has already been addressed.
Just a little hint - things aren't necessarily always as they immediately seem. There might be a little deeper thought behind Blizzard's decisions than what you seem to assume.
The Art of War is a great book to read, I recommend it to anyone regardless. It's even a suitable book for skimming, so you don't need to read it word-by-word.
Just a hint, when attacking another's post, it helps to specifically point out the parts you are attacking, else you just sound like you are saying "lol op, ur post is bad."
I think that many of the current issues will be adressed in future patches/expansions. For one, you have the psionic unit type which is present of multiple units, but no actual affect on gameplay. I have a feeling blizzard has some ideas up their sleeve they have been holding on to, and this is the precursor of such.
|
On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder..
I'm not going get involved in this IMBA discussion, but I couldn't ignore how wrong this statement is.
The Matchmaking System will automatically pair you with opponents until it reaches a 50% win ratio, no matter your race or league. If you win a game, the next game will be against someone better. If you lose a game, it will be against someone slightly worse. So the reason every race appears to have a 50% win percentage is because they do, but not because of racial balance, but because the system makes it that way.
To believe you can derive racial balance from a system that forces everyone into a 50% win ratio is simply wrong. You want a place to go for balance information? Look at the Top 200 race statistics. The fact there are only 30 Zerg in the Top 200 should ring some bells.
|
On September 02 2010 03:18 Disell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 03:07 Paperscraps wrote:On September 02 2010 02:54 JinDesu wrote:On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell Good. Then make the tech lab match my cybernetics core costs. You do realize that terran has to upgrade to tech lab for every barracks right? It adds up. This is what most are not realizing. For example, a 5 Rax Reaper build requires 5 Tech labs - that's 150 minerals and 125 gas altogether.
No thats 250/125
|
The Tech Lab's construction duration should definitely be extended. Also, making it require 50/50 mineral/gas sounds quite fair as well.
|
On September 02 2010 03:26 Snowfield wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 03:18 Disell wrote:On September 02 2010 03:07 Paperscraps wrote:On September 02 2010 02:54 JinDesu wrote:On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell Good. Then make the tech lab match my cybernetics core costs. You do realize that terran has to upgrade to tech lab for every barracks right? It adds up. This is what most are not realizing. For example, a 5 Rax Reaper build requires 5 Tech labs - that's 150 minerals and 125 gas altogether. No thats 250/125 Ah right, fail math on my part >_<
|
tech lab is too pivotal to be increasing it's build time i think. it already feels dirty when i'm making 3 tech labs at once and i cant macro for however many seconds.
|
Good post OP, well thought out and it wasn't a whiney thread like most other balance questions.
One thing though, while I agree that the auto cast system is really lame and easy, it is good for some of the new spells. For FF, if you had to click every sentry and then F and then the place and repeat, it would make the spell useless, as it's for quickly splitting armies or making them unable to retreat. Just a thought.
On September 02 2010 02:11 mOnion wrote: nothing new here that hasn't already been discussed
also what's your rank?
^ this is what's wrong with TL imo: it doesn't matter what his rank is, he's making observations.
|
On September 02 2010 02:19 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile. I honestly see where Blizzard was coming from, but honestly they implemented it terribly. The only time Zerg can be aggressive with the current implementation of creep is when they have a definite advantage over the opponent. You cannot harass or do quick counter attacks with anything that are not speedlings or mutalisks and I'm not even gonna go into Hydras.
The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but instead of mobility bonus it should be HP Regen. This is because it promotes aggressive play and makes creep a place to fall back to after an attack instead of a mandatory TO attack. On creep speed is now the same as off creep speed (can be adjusted for certain units)
I don't understand your argument here at all. It's one thing to say Zerg ought to be faster and another to make some sort of twisted assertion that a speed boost on creep is a flaw(?). It also doesn't make sense to say it's a problem if it permits Zerg to do something else. Honestly, if Zerg was forced to be aggressive all the time, I'd much more easily conclude that that is the flaw than anything else. There may be better ways to play a race, but every option ought to be available. It doesn't help, or make anything more interesting, to limit options. Expanding options is almost always the better choice. As said before, creep doesn't make Zerg immobile, which you seem to be trying to say somehow. It just makes them more mobile elsewhere. Right now, there is hardly any combo more mobile than muta/ling. Hydra roach is a little clumsy, but with speed upgrade on the roaches it's better. Ultras are wayyy faster than they were in BW, and they can actually keep up okay with the rest of your army. Hydras are the lone unit that's exceedingly slow by comparison, and that is something that can be compensated for. By that I mean, I basically don't agree with anything you're saying about Zerg's mobility. In BW, you really couldn't do speedy things with anything other than mutas and lings anyway, so your point about harrassment is a little silly. How many units should Zerg be able to harass with? In what way? Those are important questions. Honestly, too, speed roaches and speed banelings can move really fast compared to some opposing compositions.
Im pretty sure what hes saying is that the game is balanced to where zerg can fight on creep with extra speed. Meaning fighting on creep is fighting at an advantage and fighting off creep is a disadvantage. Meaning every time you go to harass or assault a base you're fighting at a disadvantage against an equal skilled opponent.
|
I dont believe Maraurder/Reaper should require their own prerequisite building either. Nerfing the timing of these units do not break TvT, TvP, TvZ alike but adding a required building would. Over the next few weeks we'll start seeing whats more obvious (as far as nerfing the timing windows that affect the match-ups).
|
My vote would be to get rid of the creep mechanics entirely except for how it affects the queen and static defense... HP regen is a terrible idea, just like it was in Wc3
My vote would be that you reduce marauder damage and make them entirely a tank/slowing unit.. they would need to be reworked a bit though, IMO hp increase is the best. Support/Caster units from the barracks should be support units, this is very similar to the Wc3/RoC caster era.
You need to make sure Terran still has an answer to banelings/4 gate. I disagree with the tech lab point entirely. If you make marauders take more of a support role, it will help with the issue a lot, but it's currently pretty balanced.
I completely agree with the maps though.
This is just another whining post about Terran though, pretty unoriginal.
|
On September 02 2010 02:19 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile. I honestly see where Blizzard was coming from, but honestly they implemented it terribly. The only time Zerg can be aggressive with the current implementation of creep is when they have a definite advantage over the opponent. You cannot harass or do quick counter attacks with anything that are not speedlings or mutalisks and I'm not even gonna go into Hydras.
The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but instead of mobility bonus it should be HP Regen. This is because it promotes aggressive play and makes creep a place to fall back to after an attack instead of a mandatory TO attack. On creep speed is now the same as off creep speed (can be adjusted for certain units)
I don't understand your argument here at all. It's one thing to say Zerg ought to be faster and another to make some sort of twisted assertion that a speed boost on creep is a flaw(?). It also doesn't make sense to say it's a problem if it permits Zerg to do something else. Honestly, if Zerg was forced to be aggressive all the time, I'd much more easily conclude that that is the flaw than anything else. There may be better ways to play a race, but every option ought to be available. It doesn't help, or make anything more interesting, to limit options. Expanding options is almost always the better choice. As said before, creep doesn't make Zerg immobile, which you seem to be trying to say somehow. It just makes them more mobile elsewhere. Right now, there is hardly any combo more mobile than muta/ling. Hydra roach is a little clumsy, but with speed upgrade on the roaches it's better. Ultras are wayyy faster than they were in BW, and they can actually keep up okay with the rest of your army. Hydras are the lone unit that's exceedingly slow by comparison, and that is something that can be compensated for. By that I mean, I basically don't agree with anything you're saying about Zerg's mobility. In BW, you really couldn't do speedy things with anything other than mutas and lings anyway, so your point about harrassment is a little silly. How many units should Zerg be able to harass with? In what way? Those are important questions. Honestly, too, speed roaches and speed banelings can move really fast compared to some opposing compositions.
What?
If the zerg is off creep they can be kited so easily by just about anything unless it's a speedling or mutalisk. This means that a Zerg is pretty much horribly at a disadvantage off of creep and breaks about even on Creep.
Basically this makes any part of the map a no-zerg zone if it doesnt have creep. So yea, they are definitely constrained by creep and the dumb speed mechanic.
You're rather wrong about BW too...Hydras were more than fast enough to do hit and run attacks, as were Ultras. in SC2 a hydra off creep is laughable.
|
`bigger maps will solve alot
|
On September 02 2010 02:19 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile. I honestly see where Blizzard was coming from, but honestly they implemented it terribly. The only time Zerg can be aggressive with the current implementation of creep is when they have a definite advantage over the opponent. You cannot harass or do quick counter attacks with anything that are not speedlings or mutalisks and I'm not even gonna go into Hydras.
The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but instead of mobility bonus it should be HP Regen. This is because it promotes aggressive play and makes creep a place to fall back to after an attack instead of a mandatory TO attack. On creep speed is now the same as off creep speed (can be adjusted for certain units)
I don't understand your argument here at all. It's one thing to say Zerg ought to be faster and another to make some sort of twisted assertion that a speed boost on creep is a flaw(?). It also doesn't make sense to say it's a problem if it permits Zerg to do something else. Honestly, if Zerg was forced to be aggressive all the time, I'd much more easily conclude that that is the flaw than anything else. There may be better ways to play a race, but every option ought to be available. It doesn't help, or make anything more interesting, to limit options. Expanding options is almost always the better choice. As said before, creep doesn't make Zerg immobile, which you seem to be trying to say somehow. It just makes them more mobile elsewhere. Right now, there is hardly any combo more mobile than muta/ling. Hydra roach is a little clumsy, but with speed upgrade on the roaches it's better. Ultras are wayyy faster than they were in BW, and they can actually keep up okay with the rest of your army. Hydras are the lone unit that's exceedingly slow by comparison, and that is something that can be compensated for. By that I mean, I basically don't agree with anything you're saying about Zerg's mobility. In BW, you really couldn't do speedy things with anything other than mutas and lings anyway, so your point about harrassment is a little silly. How many units should Zerg be able to harass with? In what way? Those are important questions. Honestly, too, speed roaches and speed banelings can move really fast compared to some opposing compositions.
he means that in practice, it just means the core zerg army is useless outside of creep, which i totally agree with.
|
On September 02 2010 02:40 Champi wrote: very nice effort in ur write up, good argument snd nicde thoughts, i do disagree with a few of ur points, such as the psi storm for instance, its not hard for a stimmed bio ball to get out of a storm at all, its quite frustrating for me as a protoss player actually as to how well they can dodge them or quickly get out of them.
I think the OP is making an overall statement about the way spells work now compared to BW. There isn't a give and take. Or a risk/reward.
Storm dodging is a thing of the past, as a pack of templar can deplete their energy in rapid succession faster than enemy units are physically able to move out of the damage radius.
You don't anticipate where those Hydra are going to be in half a second's time. And you don't plan for a storm to catch him when he tries to dodge. You just cover every inch of the field with storm. And for your opponents part. You don't try and for-see where that storm is going to land or plan an escape route. The storm is everywhere. Your only recourse is to move back. You don't storm Dodge any more. You just run backwards and keep running backwards. Because in SC2 storm is spammable. You can put storms on top of his army in front of his army and behind his army in literal seconds. It's less skill for both sides. And it's just something that happens rather than something that's dynamic.
Just like force field.
Force field is a prime example of a spell that shuts down dynamics instead of promoting them, because, aside from a high-tech massive unit ramming into them, there is literally no way for an opponent to micro against force field. The success or failure of the battle, then (especially in the early and mid game), depends solely on a single player
|
I agree with everything listed, but we have to be a bit realistic here. Things like changing smartcasting and the dynamic of spells in the game is nearly impossible without completely revamping the interface. This just isn't possible at the stage of the game and the state of the game industry in general.
However, I completely agree with the Marauder and Creep. Right now, the Marauder is completely destroying the state of the game. This unit itself shuts down any economy base play, and it's so easy to mass Marauders in early game that most people don't even risk anything but a 1 base play early on. Tons of health, huge damage output, ability to stim AND kite? There's just something wrong here. I don't understand why Blizzard still fails to see how the Roach is a former shadow of itself being nerfed to oblivion, while they keep the Marauder (designed to counter the Roach obviously) with nearly no nerfs with the exception of requiring research for concussive shells. It's insane just how easy it is for Terran to control the pace of the game and so early on with a single unit, but it's what they can do. I like the idea of reducing health and requiring the upgrade for it later, makes early game a bit more manageable without completely ruining the Marauder.
I love and hate the creep in this game. It makes you fast, REALLY fast. Almost to the point of OP. However, at what cost? Off creep, Zerg units are just horrible outside of speedlings. The nature of the maps don't help flanking positions either. There needs to be some sort of new medium between the current on and off creep for travel speed off creep. Perhaps making zerg units decently fast both on and off creep, and then allow for some sort of research at lair to allow zerg units travel faster on creep. Because honestly, I believe the creep is promoting both super aggressive play and super turtle play on both sides with the current nature. Zerg doesn't want to fight off creep, opponents don't want to fight on creep. Make Zerg units somewhat fast regardless of creep, then give them the upgrade later on. Gives both sides more options. Will it work? who knows. Don't know til you try.
|
they should make creep tumor invulnerable but it should need like 15-20 seconds to spawn
that way zerg can at least get their half of the map dominated
|
On September 02 2010 03:53 Fadetowhite wrote:`bigger maps will solve alot Bigger maps = more creep to spread
And remember that creep-spreading isn't one-sided, your opponent can raze creep much faster than you can spread it once he gets his detectors out (and the time it takes to spread creep that much on a big map ought to be enough for him to get them).
Then again, at least Nydus Worms will be far more useful on bigger maps.
|
I agree with everything except the creep speed thing, regen on creep (like blight for UD in wc3) would be a terrible change for the speed, zerg needs the speed to defend because they have more bases that have less defense and are farther spread apart. the true problem is how slow they are off-creep
simply lowering the creep speed coefficient (for balance) while raising off-creep speed would go a long way to making zerg feel a lot more aggressive I think
|
On September 02 2010 04:11 imperator-xy wrote: they should make creep tumor invulnerable but it should need like 15-20 seconds to spawn
that way zerg can at least get their half of the map dominated
That can be abused by having an overlord drop a queen at any expansion, spew creep, and spawning a creep tumor that can never be destroyed.
|
Nothing new but I'd have like to see Sc2 go more in a BW direction but I guess it's too late since they've already released it :/
|
My 2cents on the gameplay issues, specially from terran side is the medivac, the fact that 1unit can heal and transport units is imo downright stupid, every bio-ball get medivac after the stim timed push and it just makes the mobility of the terran army so immense compared to the old medics if u had say 3groups of marines before, stimmed them and attacked ur medics would often lagg behind and ur marine army would simply die.. while now u can stim, attack and ur medivacs will just fly after ur marines/marauders with no big risk of loosing heal's and since ur "medics" can just load up half ur army and drop them wherever
also i kinda acctually miss the times when, as a terran, u would acctually be afraid of A-moving into the middle against a zerg since without the terrain advantage and prepared army u would quickly be surrounded by the zerg (s)war(m) machine [lol]
but as so many ppl are already saying the maps need to increase in size, and decrease in "destroyable-backdoors" im guessing they were added primarly to counter the turtle terran's defensive abilities but as it turns out its terran who suffer the least from them
p.s what if overseers lost their underused contaminate or just got a new ability added, to drop creep tumors from say 100energy (and made them placeable without creep)
p.s.s its ok for marauders to hard-counter armored units, but why do they "need" to be such an insane support against everything on ground (slowing) then roaches needs something similar aswell, like beign able to grab melee units or something even more crazy like once u kill a roach he breaks up into 2 smaller roaches with ~50ish hp and 10damage that last for 20-30seconds
|
On September 02 2010 03:52 fnaticAugury wrote: My vote would be to get rid of the creep mechanics entirely except for how it affects the queen and static defense... HP regen is a terrible idea, just like it was in Wc3
It was a terrible idea in WC3 because it Handicapped the Undead race for no reason other than to make the races more unique. All the other races could regen away from their base. Why could the Undead not? Purely for adding race flavor and bringing more variety into the game when in actuality it restricted the Undead play style and flavor by forcing their first Hero to be one with a regen aura. It forced a single style and did the opposite of what it was intended to do.
The same is true for creep in SC2. None of the other races have to spread something all over the map to be on par with each other. This makes Zerg unique, but in a restricting way.
I think HP regen would be awesome for creep. Zerg lacks an ability to quickly heal low HP units. The creep would excel in that region without overlapping the Queens Transfusion ability. Which is useful on high hit point units. There would be a benefit to bringing Overlords to battle to spew creep but probably no benefit to spreading it with creep tumors. However creep Tumors give vision so I think they would be worth spreading for that alone.
Having creep tumors main purpose be for spying on the enemy balances out allot better with how easy they are to get rid of. A scan or a Raven/Observer is worth the cost of not being watched while you move around the battlefield. But it's not balanced at all with creeps current mechanics. Denying something so huge for so little is crazy.
|
Vatican City State95 Posts
I disagree with what you say about tech labs, you saying they can INSTANTLY switch from reaper to marauders is obvious...however you leave out the fact that for every barracks the player wants to produce a Marauder from they must have a tech lab on it. Where as it only requires zerg or protoss, 1 additional structure to create sen/stalker's roaches or whatever it may be.
|
The only thing i agree with are the maps. They seem really small, but that's because of the 'bunching up' maybe.
|
OP hit all the nails straight on the head with every issue.
Creep Tech Labs Marauders 1-sided Micro Abilities Maps
|
Just change the creep bonus movement mechanic for everyone except for queen and I'll be happy, it's such a bad design to have one of your core and only GtA in actual battles be that slow when you want to be aggressive at all.
|
i have the solution to the creep issues , what blizz do is make overlords have an ability to instantly generate creep costing half of thier HP.
|
I'm surprised the marauder damage wasn't just nerfed to be like 7-8 + 12-13 to armored. Concussive is sort of ridiculous for the fact that it's the only spell in the game that, once researched, grants the unit to be effective against something that's supposed to counter it. I sort of wish they'd just get rid of it since, like everyone is saying regarding force field, etc., it doesn't add this micro dynamic that was so often claimed early in it's inception.
|
On September 02 2010 04:18 archon256 wrote:Bigger maps = more creep to spread And remember that creep-spreading isn't one-sided, your opponent can raze creep much faster than you can spread it once he gets his detectors out (and the time it takes to spread creep that much on a big map ought to be enough for him to get them). Then again, at least Nydus Worms will be far more useful on bigger maps.
This is my fear too. When bigger maps come along the creep mechanic will further be shown as the hindrance that it is. I don't think the 1 at a time Nydus will really solve the core issue here. Not to say that Nydus won't be more useful though.
|
Very good thoughts. I learned a lot reading this post
|
On September 02 2010 04:46 Jermstuddog wrote: OP hit all the nails straight on the head with every issue.
Creep Tech Labs Marauders 1-sided Micro Abilities Maps
add a minor tweak on high ground mechanic, and the game would get much more interesting...
|
On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: Creep Mechanic It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile.
I think the word you want is "forces" not "permits" which is what Saracen had issue with. And yes, the creep mechanic is in need of help whether they just get rid of it entirely or make it a debuff for enemies would be fine. It's like they balanced the Terran and Protoss unit move speeds around having creep around the entire map but didn't realize that the Zerg would never have creep over the entire map.
On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: The Versatility of the Tech Lab When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. Terran can tech switch instantly with nothing that punishes them from doing it.
Being able to switch army compositions quickly is fine. All races can do that and it is necessary for the "build the counter" part of the game. What's not okay is just how it opens up both Marauder and Reaper which means that even if you scout the Tech Lab, you still don't know what he's going to build and how you should respond. That... and Reapers are just a fundamentally flawed unit in design (they move way too fast for a cliff walker and do too much damage to buildings) which leads to abuse that an additional 5 ingame seconds on building won't fix.
On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote:The Maps The maps are too small and too narrow which is what Starcraft plays terribly on.However they continue to implement wide open naturals which pretty much kills early economic builds forcing more and more 1 base play.
Maps... just need work. Too small, too narrow, naturals too exposed or they have a high ground right next to it. But Zerg units need to move faster off of creep too or else larger maps won't mean very much.
|
@OP
Completely agree with your thoughts on creep, it forces defensive play and as you said to be agressive you either have to make the units that don't rely on creep (muta/ling), be very significantly ahead of your opponent, or wait till the whole map is creeped.. which won't happen vs any decent player considering all you need is detection and 30 seconds to ruin what the zerg player has spent the whole game building up.
I don't agree with your thoughts on tech labs. I don't think the issue lies with how easy it is to switch from unit to unit, I think it lies in how hard these units steamroll early game zerg. Instantly switching to marauders wouldn't be a big deal if marauders didn't steamroll buildings, roaches, and stalkers so easily with concussive leaving no chance of micro. Leave the cost and build time of tech lab as is, however.....
..it wouldn't be a big deal if there was an additional building required for some units (banshees come to mind..) I don't care if it costs 10 minerals, 10 gas, and 10 seconds to build.. there needs to be something more for a scouting player to see that gives a clue as to what units are coming because right now you're basically playing blind until you see actual production heading your way. It's not about making terran have to spend more to get what he wants, it's about there being bigger cues to the opponent to know what's coming.
Right now they can open with 1/1/1 and you could be looking at damn near any viable strategy in the world heading your way. You scan my spire you know exactly what's coming.
Also, /facepalm @ the guy who said tanks need to be stronger.
|
Agree 100% with battle dynamics. I seriously think Blizzard should work on this. You don't really react to abilities in this game, they just sort of happen.
Above all else, I HATE the way Psi Storm works right now. Instead of a few, powerful storms that you need to try to dodge, they just blanket your whole army and it's not really worth it to try to dodge it (the exception is in this korean replay I saw where he used burrow on roaches w/ tunneling claws whenever a storm was on them, which almost negates the Psi Storm).
|
Yes the tech lab is cheaper than a cybernetics core or a roach warren, but you only need one of those. You need a tech lab for each barracks. And while you're building a cyber/warren your gateway/hatchery can still build units. If I'm putting a tech lab on the rax, that rax isn't doing anything for at least 30 seconds. These things matter quite a bit early game.
In late game it makes it so making an additional rax to increase marauder production takes twice as long.
Tech labs are not the problem. People should just wait and see how the planned patch turns out. I think with the siege tank nerf and the changes to zealot/reaper training time people are going to be much more satisfied with the state of the game. I don't think you guys realize how huge an impact small changes like those have on the metagame.
|
On September 02 2010 02:45 Zoroth wrote: Uhm, I think the OP needs to revisit a number of these things and try actually seeing things in action, because the way you present these things makes it look like you haven't done any of that at all. Your theories are full of holes and you're trying to find issues that don't exist.
Have you discussed these things with pro players and tried to figure out why Blizzard have these things implemented? Cause most of this has already been addressed.
Just a little hint - things aren't necessarily always as they immediately seem. There might be a little deeper thought behind Blizzard's decisions than what you seem to assume.
The Art of War is a great book to read, I recommend it to anyone regardless. It's even a suitable book for skimming, so you don't need to read it word-by-word.
Probably the most useless post in this thread, I could basically copy/paste your post and post it just about any thread on teamliquid. What holes in his theories? What things aren't necessarily as they immediately seem? What does the art of war have to do with anything he wrote? Please, gtfo troll.
I have to agree that the creep mechanic is a hindrance to the mobility of the zerg, as have already been said Hydras are useless of creep. Imagine the stalker move as slow as the hydra when not on psionic matrix. I also have to agree with your thoughts on the tech lab, they should definitely try to bring back the academy to make the terran have to devote more minerals when going bio. Imo, it's too easy for the terran to start with early bioball pushes to transition into tank/marine play without any type of punishment.
|
|
I want them to fix the glitch where you can see the enemy call down mules or chronoboost through the fog of war.
|
I happen to be really bored at work and disagree with alot of this so here comes a counter wall of text.
On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote:
Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile. [...] The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but instead of mobility bonus it should be HP Regen. This is because it promotes aggressive play and makes creep a place to fall back to after an attack instead of a mandatory TO attack. On creep speed is now the same as off creep speed (can be adjusted for certain units)
It already was an HP regen bonus in BW and that didn't really add anything to the game. For the Zerg maybe, but certainly not for their opponent. Creep add an extra element to fight over and Zerg units move insanely fast on it which gives them a *clear* advantage. It is a "fun" and "balanced" mechanic which emphasizes Zerg being dominant on their own ground, that's as good as it can get.
The Versatility of the Tech Lab This is what is breaking Terran right now. For 50 minerals 25 gas and 25 seconds Terran opens EVERY SINGLE UNIT out of a production building instead of incredibly niche units. This makes it so it's impossible to accurately scout or predict what Terran is doing and makes it impossible to punish Terran as they can just tech switch anyway. When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY with no punishing factor its terrible game design. Terran can tech switch instantly with nothing that punishes them from doing it. This is why TvZ is broken in the early game.
The fix to this is to increase tech lab build time to 35 seconds and increase the cost to 50/50 AND bring back the academy to open up reaper tech tree and certain infantry upgrades. This makes Terran have to go a distinct tech tree for bio and makes it easier to have a strategy ready to combat it. I also would enjoy Banshee's cloak being a fusion core upgrade, but thats overkill~
I can't see how that is such a big issue considering Terran is the only race that has to cut their military unit production to access tech, on literally every building. Sure it gives them a slight edge early game but its nothing experience/scouting can't help you see. Then when you head into mid/late game and take a look at Zerg's retarded tech swapping ability or toss' ability to instantly create just the right mix of units they need, everything seems rather balanced.
Please don't make giant assumptions either like "this is why TvZ is broken in the early game", the only "broken" part of TvZ early game is the strenght of early Reapers. Terran is just no longer the predictable slug with no map control they were early game in BW.
The Power of the Marauder Honestly I think the marauders are an awesome unit and amazing to play with (terran main) but i can admit that they are overpowered in the early game and in certain aspects. First off marauders give free map control for the whole early game and forces protoss to go tier 2 instantly which eliminates FE play for Toss while letting Terran doing anything they want. The second problem is there upgrades which makes marauders into super heroes. Concussive shells disallows any micro from the opponent and punishes skirmishes and harassment. Stim and marauders is just ridiculous in how fast marauders can kill anything armored, how fast they become (lol synergy), and how little drawbacks are there from using it. I'm not gonna even get into marauder drops which are completely stupid (again im a terran main)
I agree with Marauders being very powerful but to a certain extent they need to be. I would cut their damage VS armored to 15-16ish, increase stim cost to 30 and call it a day. I also have no idea why anything that eliminates FE play is necessarily a "bad" thing. You speak of punishment, its not because toss and zerg have spent 12 years grabbing free expos without Terran being able to do anything that it should be a given in SC2.
Battle Dynamics
Dynamics. It’s what makes Brood War tick. Even though the number of viable units in each match up is relatively small (you likely would see the exact same units every game), the amount of outcomes is enormous. The way each unit interacts on the battlefield, the way each player must exploit these units to their fullest potential gives Brood War its immense depth and longevity. It’s not something just anyone can master. It requires smart thinking and quick and accurate hands, everything we admire in a progamer. But it takes the hands of a god to play this game to perfection, and a battle between gods is so damn beautiful to watch.
I have read your entire post about this and I didn't really understand anything else than long nostalgic talks about how BW used to be awesome. SC2 is everything BW was with less APM/multitask required to compete (which, depending how how you look at it, is either a bad or good thing. For every player who don't want to or can't get 400 APM, this should be a good thing). Still, I will attempt to argue your points. Personal note : I respect strategy and good decision-making alot more than I respect fast hands.
Back in Brood War, you had a nice counter interaction between clearly overpowered spells – irradiate and dark swarm, EMP, stasis field, and recall, psionic storm and, well, storm dodging and mutalisk sniping. Fast forward to SC2 and the emergence of autocasting, and the dynamics and unit potential are changed entirely.
How did any of this change ? With pretty much every caster and spell being easily acessible and viable, it creates even more potential. None of what you just quoted is gone and if anything, this part of the metagame has been vastly improved (exit the too costly or useless casters.)
First, many spell interactions are no longer possible. Storm dodging is a thing of the past, as a pack of templar can deplete their energy in rapid succession faster than enemy units are physically able to move out of the damage radius. Spells like fungal growth suffer a similar fate. And then there are the new spells. Force field is a prime example of a spell that shuts down dynamics instead of promoting them, because, aside from a high-tech massive unit ramming into them, there is literally no way for an opponent to micro against force field. The success or failure of the battle, then (especially in the early and mid game), depends solely on a single player, and how well he places his force fields, while the other player can only sit back and watch. Compare this to even a terribly underused spell like disruption web, which forced more micro from the opponent, as well as created a positional advantage, and the difference between the two games is clear. And, with spells so much easier to handle, it’s blatantly obvious that a nerf is needed. But with the nerf to spells comes a terrible price – a single spell caster’s unit potential is decreased considerably.
I agree with the storm-spam being rather ridiculous but it is in no way imbalanced or bad. Ghosts VS High Templar/Sentries is a fine metagame right now and you quote spells like Disruption Web forcing positional adjustement and micro yet at the same time bash Force Field which is everything that was exciting about Statis Field (how it could block chokes or create obstacles) with the advantage of being so much more accessible. All the AOE spells, Fungal Growth, Storm, etc., they are a little bit too spammy for my taste but they definitely make army formation an issue to think about. Again, +1 to strategy and metagame. I don't understand any of your points and why they make this bad for the game.
Again, look at high templar. No amount of SC2 high templar will ever be able to match the devastation and havoc Jangbi's few could wreak on a tank line. No amount of infestors will change the a game as much as GGplay's defilers did versus Iris. And with the dumbing-down of spell casters, we lose one more important thing: key timing windows. Remember in TvZ when all the Zerg had to do was hold out until a single ability finished before he could turn the entire game around? Remember how nail-bitingly exciting it was to watch those old Savior games where he would stall and stall until the very last second? Or the hydra bust that comes right before storm finishes? Or the siege mode and mines that come out just in time to stop the early Protoss aggression? Such hit-or-miss precision, such tense anticipation is no more.
This is where I really felt like you were just remembering the "good old days" and seemed to expect SC2 to deliver you the same experience instantly. This reminds me of WoW vanilla raiders saying BC raiding is dumb and Vanilla was the shit, then WOTLK raiders saying BC raiding was the best and WOTLK sucks, and then the next generation in Cataclysm which is going to say WOTLK ruled and Cataclysm is garbage. Quoting all of the intense SC1 moments that happened after years of the game being there and then saying SC2 just isn't the same doesn't seem very relevant to me and is a very common syndrome. Nostalgia doesn't make a game better or worst.
A similar phenomenon exists with the reduction of splash damage. We have gone from the lurker to the baneling, from the corsair to the phoenix, from the reaver to the immortal and colossus, from the spider mine to the, well, nothing, and from the archon to the pitiful ball of a unit that goes by the same name. In Brood War, splash damage was a double edged sword. It forced micro from both you and your opponent (manually targeting to maximize damage versus splitting your army to minimize damage), but it also exponentially grew in power, such that a critical mass was with ranged splash units existed at surprisingly small numbers. The point? Splashing units in small numbers are great in that they encourage battle dynamics, but a large number of splashing units is hard to balance. So, with SC2, the units lose much of their splashing ability and effectiveness to compensate for easier control and smart AI. And even then, you can still see the tremendous power of splash units en masse. Just take a look at all the “Terran mech imba” threads that clutter the strategy forum. For balance’s sake, there’s no way you could argue against Blizzard’s decision of watering down splash damage. But with that decision, you will no longer bet on how many kills a reaver harass will net, or watch one of the most brilliant timing attacks in Starcraft history.
From the Spider Mine to the Helion ? I think the loss of Spider Mines kinda sucked but Helion micro is definitely there and there is potential to it. I also agree the loss of lurkers to ground Scourges hurt the game a little bit but again you have baneling targeting and flanking + desirability of using them on creep to keep it interesting. Again, im trying to understand what justifies your points here. Terran doesn't have Psionic Storm or Fungal Growth so they make it up by having mech units who splash. Where's the issue ? What has changed about Archons anyway ? In BW they took max damage from every unit, in SC2 "on the fly" merging has been vastly improved, they do bonus damage to bio/zerg and have no armor weakness and they're a pathetic ball of a unit ? lolwut ?
The Maps The overarching flaw in the game. When you're playing the game you would think the thing you play on would be balanced and well designed, well Blizzard disagrees with you. The maps are too small and too narrow which is what Starcraft plays terribly on. Blizzard also seems to avoid having alternate routes to the enemy, all though ive got to give credit as they finally implemented more ways to flank on Delta Quadrant and Xel Naga Caverns. However they continue to implement wide open naturals which pretty much kills early economic builds forcing more and more 1 base play. Pretty much there really really bad and the community can't do anything about it because blizzard implemented the worst custom game and map making system possible..
Agree and disagree with you on this. I think some maps could use a bit of help as far as where central combat can take place but usually maps with a bland center have variable xel'naga tower/expanding mechanics to keep it interesting. The only thing that is narrow is generally the side-routes to some expos but if you make an expo there it has to be a strategic decision, not just "oh moar minerals ima make a nexus there". The flanking options are plenty and the only race that really benefits from chokes is Terran. The only one that overly suffers from it is Zerg. Either intercept T before they get there, don't engage them there or don't expo over there at all. +1 to decision making and strategy, again, explain to me how that is a bad thing. I'm not even going to go into why you seem to think 1 base play is bad and early economic builds are good. I'm pretty sure the whole TL community would agree micro is cool and "fun". There's nothing exciting about macro. It may be impressive, it may be done better by some players than others, but there is nothing to it. How much cash you got/how fast you build units/how many production buildings you have isn't very exciting compared to epic 1 base combats where each player is trying to gain an edge in small squad combat until ressources are almost dry. I have no idea why you defend fast expand play so much, they are what dumbed down the game and put players like Boxer in retirement. At least greediness is punishable by other stuff than more greediness, and I hope for the sake of the game that it never changes.
The community has handled BW rather well but Blizzard is definitely determined to keep things in their own hands in SC2 which IMO is how it should be. Rest assured that they often make their design decisions based on the advice of players who have mastered the game.
|
Sorrowbane,
It already was an HP regen bonus in BW stopped reading here and that didn't really add anything to the game. For the Zerg maybe, but certainly not for their opponent. Creep add an extra element to fight over and Zerg units move insanely fast on it which gives them a *clear* advantage. It is a "fun" and "balanced" mechanic which emphasizes Zerg being dominant on their own ground, that's as good as it can get.
... blah blah blah... newb babbling ...
lol. you played world of warcraft and think u know anything about bw or rts? its funny that u think zerg gets HP regen bonus bceause they dont. sad. PLAY BROODWAR BEFORE SPEAK.
|
or maybe you have no idea what you're talking about. you're right tho, I'm just a casual gamer. I do WoW dailies and have never played BW in my life.
owaitlul
|
On September 02 2010 02:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell Good. Then make the tech lab match my cybernetics core costs.
Cost to build 3 Marauders simultaneously = 600 Min 75 gas (3 rax @ 150m, 3 TL @ 50min 25gas/ea)
Cost to build 3 Stalkers simultaneously = 600 Min (3 Gate @ 150min/ea , 1 Cyber Core @ 150min)
Cost to build 3 Roaches simultaneously = 150 min (1 Roach Warren @ 150min)
|
I mostly agree with few people here.
- I think the academy building should be added to game, and be required for techlab/reactor. - think zerg speeds should be increased, but remove speed increase over creep. its stupid+promotes turtle. Queen should move faster on creep though. - remove maurader slow. It doesnt fit in with starcraft - nerf warpgate. It respawns energy too fast. Should be same time as gateway to build units. (i play protoss btw). This would force pvp at start to not tech to warpgate at start, because there would be no advantage of building units any faster, thus no stupid warpgate rushes) - put back reaver, but not have it require robotoics support bay. Robotics support bay costs WAY too much (or lower cost of support bay) - increase immortal range, 5 is pathetic. - remove dark shrine and put dark templar tech in templar archives.. like in bw. - nerf collososus, and buff zealots - remove the zealots "charge ability", and instead just make zealot speed upgrade, like in bw.
|
On September 02 2010 07:37 Infowarrior wrote: Cost to build 3 Marauders simultaneously = 600 Min 75 gas (3 rax @ 150m, 3 TL @ 50min 25gas/ea)
Cost to build 3 Stalkers simultaneously = 600 Min (3 Gate @ 150min/ea , 1 Cyber Core @ 150min)
Cost to build 3 Roaches simultaneously = 150 min (1 Roach Warren @ 150min)
You really can't compare them like that. You have to allocate the sunk costs over each unit that is produced from the building. It's not like you have to pay for a new Barracks and Tech Lab for each Marauder you want to make.
|
On September 02 2010 07:40 spacemaggot wrote: I mostly agree with few people here.
- I think the academy building should be added to game, and be required for techlab/reactor. - think zerg speeds should be increased, but remove speed increase over creep. its stupid+promotes turtle. Queen should move faster on creep though. - remove maurader slow. It doesnt fit in with starcraft - nerf warpgate. It respawns energy too fast. Should be same time as gateway to build units. (i play protoss btw). This would force pvp at start to not tech to warpgate at start, because there would be no advantage of building units any faster, thus no stupid warpgate rushes) - put back reaver, but not have it require robotoics support bay. Robotics support bay costs WAY too much (or lower cost of support bay) - increase immortal range, 5 is pathetic. - remove dark shrine and put dark templar tech in templar archives.. like in bw. - nerf collososus, and buff zealots - remove the zealots "charge ability", and instead just make zealot speed upgrade, like in bw.
Nerfing Warpgate would possibly mess up PvT and maybe PvZ. But I agree that academy building should be added and the dark shrine was originally added because Blizzard wanted player to easily to identify if the protoss is teching up to DT but I think its better to merge dark shrine and templar archive together.
|
On September 02 2010 07:31 spacemaggot wrote:Sorrowbane, Show nested quote +It already was an HP regen bonus in BW stopped reading here and that didn't really add anything to the game. For the Zerg maybe, but certainly not for their opponent. Creep add an extra element to fight over and Zerg units move insanely fast on it which gives them a *clear* advantage. It is a "fun" and "balanced" mechanic which emphasizes Zerg being dominant on their own ground, that's as good as it can get.
... blah blah blah... newb babbling ...
lol. you played world of warcraft and think u know anything about bw or rts? its funny that u think zerg gets HP regen bonus bceause they dont. sad. PLAY BROODWAR BEFORE SPEAK. This is exactly why I avoid posting on the sc2 forums-.-
Seriously, play broodwar first before you try and talk about it. Because all of the things you said are wrong.
Zerg does not get an HP regen bonus in BW, and the rest of your post is pretty much utter bs(blah blah blah, this is sc2 not bw is all I read which is not a good reason to disagree with OP).
Edit:To OP, Indeed, this covers most of the problem with sc2 gameplay right now. Although, I don't really think that tech lab is imba as Terran has to get tech lab on each of their buildings but the rest of the points are pretty good.
|
So let me get this straight ; the fact that I played BW at all is questioned because you ignore that zerg ground units get bonus HP regen on creep in BW ?
While we're into freshmen psychology, maybe you're insecure because someone disagrees with what you think is right ? My gosh, if that's true, MAYBE you use "game imbalance" and "game problems" as an excuse for your inability to become a better player O=
But you don't see me accuse you of any of that. The game is fun. It is mostly balanced. If you have a beef with the core mechanics of the game itself and pretend you can be the judge of it, you better have solid arguments because the folk behind the actual game have more credit at game design than you ever will. Get rid of the personal bashing and present some arguments if you disagree.
|
One thing that would help the whole tech lab thing massively would just be a build time increase. I would also cream my pants if hydralisks got a movement speed upgrade. What has been mentioned about 1.1 so far looks good, but I do agree with some of the points made in this thread as well.
|
im just glad that people finally more and more realize what a huge negative impact the maps have on the game.
|
On September 02 2010 07:42 arsenic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 07:37 Infowarrior wrote: Cost to build 3 Marauders simultaneously = 600 Min 75 gas (3 rax @ 150m, 3 TL @ 50min 25gas/ea)
Cost to build 3 Stalkers simultaneously = 600 Min (3 Gate @ 150min/ea , 1 Cyber Core @ 150min)
Cost to build 3 Roaches simultaneously = 150 min (1 Roach Warren @ 150min)
You really can't compare them like that. You have to allocate the sunk costs over each unit that is produced from the building. It's not like you have to pay for a new Barracks and Tech Lab for each Marauder you want to make.
If I want to build them at the same time (simultaneously), than yes I do.
|
On September 02 2010 08:12 Sorrowbane wrote: So let me get this straight ; the fact that I played BW at all is questioned because you ignore that zerg ground units get bonus HP regen on creep in BW ?
While we're into freshmen psychology, maybe you're insecure because someone disagrees with what you think is right ? My gosh, if that's true, MAYBE you use "game imbalance" and "game problems" as an excuse for your inability to become a better player O=
But you don't see me accuse you of any of that. The game is fun. It is mostly balanced. If you have a beef with the core mechanics of the game itself and pretend you can be the judge of it, you better have solid arguments because the folk behind the actual game have more credit at game design than you ever will. Get rid of the personal bashing and present some arguments if you disagree. It seems that you still think zerg units got a hp regen bonus on creep in BW. THEY DIDN'T. They aren't ignoring this fact because what you stated there is false. That's why everyone is giving you shit cause you can't even get your facts straight and are trying to act like some pro BW gamer.
|
On September 02 2010 08:12 Sorrowbane wrote: So let me get this straight ; the fact that I played BW at all is questioned because you ignore that zerg ground units get bonus HP regen on creep in BW ?
While we're into freshmen psychology, maybe you're insecure because someone disagrees with what you think is right ? My gosh, if that's true, MAYBE you use "game imbalance" and "game problems" as an excuse for your inability to become a better player O=
But you don't see me accuse you of any of that. The game is fun. It is mostly balanced. If you have a beef with the core mechanics of the game itself and pretend you can be the judge of it, you better have solid arguments because the folk behind the actual game have more credit at game design than you ever will. Get rid of the personal bashing and present some arguments if you disagree. Except zerg ground units don't gain bonus HP regen on creep in BW-.-
|
A couple other issues regarding gameplay:
(1) SCVs that are repairing should be auto-targetted, just like attacking SCVs are. It's ridiculous that a Thor surrounded by SCVs repairing it is invincible to lings, because the lings cannot reach the Thor. Furthermore, it's really difficult to manually target the SCVs because the damn Thor is so big on top, so you can't physically click on them. This is extremely aggravating.
(2) Correct me if i am wrong, but Mutalisks shoot at Medivacs BEFORE shooting at Marines!!?!?!?!? This, combined with the SCV auto-repair not being targetted, just doesn't make any sense. I had a swarm of lings and roaches and mutalisks attacking an infantry group. My flock of Mutas were busy chasing medivacs around while my lings and roaches were hitting the infantry and getting owned because infantry just owns roach/ling so badly. GAAHHHHH SO INFURIATING.
|
On September 02 2010 08:31 Infowarrior wrote:
If I want to build them at the same time (simultaneously), than yes I do.
You're ignoring a number of factors. Chiefly that larva most also be available, 3 every 27 seconds for roaches which slightly outstrips the spawn rate of a queen, and that larva can then not be used on other things like workers. A queen and a hatch together produce 6 larva total every 40 seconds assuming they're all used right away so for 3 roaches of simultaneous production at 3 larva every 27 seconds that leaves about 25% of the larva left over so that's another ~75% of 300 + 150 minerals to add to your equation leaving the much more accurate cost of roughly 487.5 minerals.
|
The tech lab part is pretty ignorant. SC is about really unique races being balanced. what will you say next, that zerg need make gateways so they are on equal footing with protoss? On top of that, you lie in your post. no tech lab does not unlock EVERY SINGLE UNIT. you still need a ghost academy, an armory, and a fusion core.
|
And every single time Terran gets pulled out of the context when it's about tech switching. I'm sorry but if it's not an objective and fair observation of the facts you lost me reading and this from on that terran is the tech switching race.
There is nothing as fast for tech switching then Zerg, and next to it is Protos standing. Yes Terran can tech switch but it's comming from all different buildings, just like zerg needs buildings, and Terran doesn't only need 1, but multiple to stand a chance and keep up with production. Terran can't popup 16 eggs in no time out of 1 building, Zerg can, so they are the tech switching guy's, not Terran as it takes a very very long time to rebuild an army even out of multiple buildings! Thats' costing thousands of resources, not just 1 Spire to produce a crap load of muta's or whatever in seconds. So don't start Terran is thé tech switching race of all. Warp gates spawn twice as many different units then barracks and nearly allot faster, not even including Chrono Boosts !
And lastly I wanna add, Terran found some nice attacks latly to push with early game, boehoe now all go cry a river while this was months the job from the Zerg in Beta (9-pool), Terran had nothing to defend at start, but Terran found way's, besides walling in, later on Protos found a good way (4-gate push) to move out very early game. But now that Terran can move out with confidence for the first time in months everybody stand on there toe's. Let people find way's to defend, you know it will happen. Soon, if it wasn't nerfed/patched or what ever the dynamics change again, Zerg would find a nice build order or whatever and everything would flatten out again. But now everybody is yelling so loudly that Terran will get nerfed and soon, Terran will be underpowered for 99% of the people! Zerg is used to have a second base for months at low food, that is taken away and everything is unbalanced, ya well ...
|
On September 02 2010 08:31 Infowarrior wrote: If I want to build them at the same time (simultaneously), than yes I do.
As tetracycloide said, you're missing a lot of things if you want to do that kind of a comparison which is ultimately worth nothing because it speaks nothing of the long term benefit of investment. Otherwise you could make it even more drastic and say if you wanted to make 6 Roaches at once, you can add in the cost of a Queen and then multiply the Barracks and Tech Lab cost by 6 and get some ridiculous number pointing at how things are so cheap for Zerg. But that number ultimately means nothing.
|
Great post, but the over exaggerations on some parts ( namely tech labs opening up every single unit) and some odd suggestions ( No I'm hugely in favour of creep giving HP regen, I just think it's odd you'd want speed removed) make the post less legit then it really is, and face it, gives haters to things to nitpick at.
However I do think where you talk about Battle Dynamics, the strength of Marauders Early game, and the fact that Creep is more of a Defensive mechanic then an offensive one is pretty interesting.
I do miss having a dynamic fight, where it wasn't up to unit size but more or less unit composition and HOW YOU USED YOUR UNITS. I do have a belief that micro-ing will eventually show up sooner or later, but not to the extent it is in BW ( hopefully I'm wrong though).
And for those wondering why Creep is not offensive, c'mon. You're never ever going to get creep near your enemies base, this isn't beta. Overlords aren't fast enough and don't even spit creep fast enough to be used offensively anymore. Creep has become a defensive thing, if you're enemy attacks, you fight on creep.
Ultimately I agree with a lot of your points. And yes Blizzard fix your damn maps lol.
|
There's way too much misinformation in this thread that I don't even know where to start. I'll ignore it and just talk about the original post. 10-15s Tech Lab nerf would do wonders for the brokeness that is early Marauder/Reaper openings. They're so quick to do 5s nerfs on every Zealot; they should be experimenting with delays on Terran openings too. My other main complaint with Tech lab units is that the Marauder is way too damn cost effective. Blizzard argues that since they can only hit ground it's balanced, but then look at the Immortal: Less range, less speed, higher tech, less massable, bulkier, can't kite for shit, and tons less cost effective. A lot of it has to do with that measly 25gas cost for the Marauder. Stalkers (50 gas) aren't twice as good as Marauders, I don't care what people say. I mean wtf. It's like Terran has higher GtG and AtA cost ratios than any other race and they want to keep it that way for some god awful reason.
Creep mechanic I have mixed feelings about. I feel like it's a good mechanic for diversifying gameplay and adding a new strategic element to Zerg play, but at the same time I see how it can gimp the flexibility of a Zerg army. I think you can kill two birds with one stone and take one of the spellcasters and give them a creep ability. Zerg always complain about how boring their race is and their lack of spellcasters, so why not make like a creep bomb that last temporarily but long enough to be useful for an engagement if you have good micro. It can be the Dark Swarm of SC2 and could have debilitating properties. The more reason for Terran to hesitate using bioball, the better.
The spells in the game are fine. Just because they're slightly easier doesn't simplify things, it actually makes the potential for crazy shit to be even more complex. Being capable of more things simultaneously is a good thing. I feel that forcefields can be micro'd out of and that's just whining. Ever play Zerg and bait Forcefields with your Zerglings? Insta-cast aoe stuff is still bullshit though. EMP/Storm all should have weight but be dodgeable.
|
really great insight - I strongly agree with you!
Why Blizzard won't use balanced scbw-maps made by professionals or react to the amazing new iccup maps is beyond my understanding, as the current maps are some of the worst maps I've ever seen in my experience with all sorts of RTS-games.
You'd think Blizzard would first really want to balance Maps, because all the other balance-changes made are depending on the maps. So if they for example try to balance warp-ins, the creep-mechanic, any sort of movement-speed or early-harrass-strategies, it won't be balanced at all, just if ppl start to use bigger Maps, which is one thing I've been hoping for since I first saw those tiny little cheese-maps that totally destroy the game atm.
|
lol @ tech lab complaint. seems people will complain about nearly anything these days.
|
I COMPLETELY agree with your points on maps, and battle dynamics including spellcasters/powerful units in BW.
These two points would fix SO much for the game if they were done properly.
I'd be willing to say it's 95% of what is making SC2 not fun and not dynamic currently.
I agree with your other points as well, with creep, marauders, etc (especially with creep) but the maps and battle dynamics points are definitely HUGE factors that are making the game just not feel right currently.
I keep linking this TL article so many times, and I hope that people continue to read and think about what it has to say, because it aligns with a lot of things that this thread is talking about in the OP: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=120471
Blizzard really needs to stop balancing the game around numbers, and start balancing the game around maps and what the units actually do, especially spellcasters.
|
The only point i somewhat agree with is the maps.
I feel like alot of maps are too linear or narrow which constrains tactics/strats very often.
|
On September 02 2010 02:45 Zoroth wrote: Uhm, I think the OP needs to revisit a number of these things and try actually seeing things in action, because the way you present these things makes it look like you haven't done any of that at all. Your theories are full of holes and you're trying to find issues that don't exist.
Have you discussed these things with pro players and tried to figure out why Blizzard have these things implemented? Cause most of this has already been addressed.
Just a little hint - things aren't necessarily always as they immediately seem. There might be a little deeper thought behind Blizzard's decisions than what you seem to assume.
The Art of War is a great book to read, I recommend it to anyone regardless. It's even a suitable book for skimming, so you don't need to read it word-by-word. So was this just a post to increase your post count towards that shiny marine icon?
You made generalizations and addressed nothing in the original post.
"Your theories are full of holes and you're trying to find issues that don't exist."
Uh... care to explain what the hell you're even talking about here? Not even one citation of these "holes" you seem to think exist. Also, for calling someone out on assuming things, you seem to do a lot of it yourself. Either address things you didn't agree with, or don't post.
|
The bigger problem with tech labs is not that they are cheap, but that they are interchangable. This, combined with Terran's ease of scouting, allows for very quick responses to anything a player might be doing. He's going mutas? Just swap a techlab off a barracks and put it on your factory; you just saved yourself a bunch of time/money. Your opponent going twilight council with no robo bay? Swap a techlab on a starport for cloaked banshees. Colossus? Reactor on a starport for an easy counter. Essentially, Terran doesn't waste money on teching. You're going to need a factory/starport no matter what and you can prebuild reactors/tech labs and switch them as you see fit.
|
People also really need to stop focusing on arguing about tech labs/marauders/creep etc. and what the numbers should be on them in this thread, the stuff that isn't really that important, and focusing on the actual important and extremely insightful things the OP has brought up, such as the maps and battle dynamics sections of his post.
|
Marauders dont necessarily need to be nerfed, but adjusted. Im a toss and my number one gripe with this game right now is the marauder. Its like blizzards favorite child who gets the candy and stuff from the parents and never gets grounded while almost every other unit has been spanked and told they had to sit in the corner. The marauder was patted gently on the butt once (conc nerf) but it really didnt do what it needed to.
I think that a marauder speed nerf would be great. No need for damage/health adjustments, just make it so that it doesnt form that awful ball with marines. It makes me rage so hard when i see that neatly-packed ball with stimmed MM rolling around the map like they own it (note: they do).
By making it slower, you slow down terran timing attacks, make conc shells + stim less effective without an outright nerf, and allow chances to split the terran army (flanks, forcefield). Why the marauder is allowed to remain as fast as the marine is beyond me: their synergy is just so magnificent (in a rotten-at-the-core way) that it boggles my mind that blizzard doesnt realize why this unit is currently so dominant and take steps to solve it. Its not something that will be figured out (cant micro against marauders cause of lolconc). It can be beaten, but it still dominates: the fear and threat remains.
If i had a magic wand, i would play a PvT and get good and rage-y and then just go to town on the marauder: (*wave* 1 hp, *wave* melee range, *wave* attack slows down itself instead of the opponent, *wave* when it dies it does significant splash damage to the rest of the bioball) but i think that just nerfing the speed would be a significant start to bring the marauder back down to earth.
|
the people that claim that all the games problems can simply be solved by making biger maps.. you do realize that you can play 1v1 games on the 8 player maps and the game prettymuch becomes utterly broken if you do?
Zerg is useless on biger maps because of the creep spreading, it takes the better part of 20 minutes to spread a creep highway from one side to the other side. all they can do is go mutas and hope to win the game that way, even speedlings take over a two minutes to go from one side to the other side of the map.
lets not even talk about Marauder drops or the stupid sensor towers for terrans.
|
truly great post of OP. bump the thread. every word is the truth and this should be posted in the blizzard forum as welll...
looking forward to the next topics aka warp mechanic / queen mechanic / mule - depot -scan...
|
On September 02 2010 21:27 PulseSUI wrote: the people that claim that all the games problems can simply be solved by making biger maps.. you do realize that you can play 1v1 games on the 8 player maps and the game prettymuch becomes utterly broken if you do?
Zerg is useless on biger maps because of the creep spreading, it takes the better part of 20 minutes to spread a creep highway from one side to the other side. all they can do is go mutas and hope to win the game that way, even speedlings take over a two minutes to go from one side to the other side of the map.
lets not even talk about Marauder drops or the stupid sensor towers for terrans.
have you followed or watched the bw pro scene?
bigger maps doesnt mean 8 player maps but BIGGER 2 player maps. more expansions. expos which are not easy to harass and spaces on maps which can be secured solely by choke or because its an island expansion.
that means: longer rush distances. more resources for zerg to draw on in the late game. economic orientied build orders. e.g. double expand of zerg. T can practically go 5rax reaper into cc in sc2 while zerg only can go for 2 base at the same time. why? because on every single map the 3rd expo is either very far away or blocked by rocks aka map pool = shyt,
on top of that OP was talking about the creepmechanic + mapsize. and those are both addressed, the creepmechanic should be changed into hp regen and zergunits should really have same speed on/off creep. as of now its just an annoyance and somekind of handicap/necessity for zerg players not really an advantage if you do spread creep. since: do it and you are on even footing, dont do it and you either loose or have to way outplay the opponent...
|
|
terran needs a overhaul in the Bio ball mechanic... marauder should be less powerful.
less hp, less damage and no stim on them.
|
read the whole thing. I honestly didnt think i could take any more balance descussion...but when it is as well executed as this i think i can manage. Excellent post, stands out among the masses of posts as a great read and should be read by every member of blizz. great contribution
|
Creep Mechanic Its just small maps that not making this mechanic a disaster, the bigger the maps will be the more obvious it would be, that creep is broken( presonally hydra). The Versatility of the Tech Lab Its okay with techlabs untill terrans use their barrack labs to build tanks and banshees later... Either make different labs to infantry and mech or make it that they can use those tech labs but still have to wait building time to apply to new building, not instant swapping. The Power of the Marauder Remove stim or make it only move speed bonus for marauder or make it cost like 30-35 hp.
Also think again about the things you nerfed in beta, because those were rush changes when people had no enough time to find counters. Simple example is broodlord, longest tech tree in the game, attack only ground, slow and useless without any support on their own. And they nerfed its damage, armor and hp, i guess because marines weren't killing them fast enough... Yes it was strong, but for the money you spend on them it SHOULD be strong, and even if it was god damn strong any god damn air unit counter them, so why the hell it cost like Carrier, but not even half as usefull as him. The answer is "because noobs from beta couldnt build 3 vikings to counter them".
|
I think you should play the game some more before posting. Do you seriously want terran to have to spend 35 sec 50/50 on a attachment AND a building just to make units? lol I completely agree that the idea that for reapers you need roaches and they can counter you with out so much as an extra building/attachment but you're asking way too much and this coming from a zerg. I think instead the problem is with zerg's early scouting ability
Edit: Personally on the creep mechanic I think their should be something of an auto cast on the tumors. But make the AI faulty so it's more friendly and inspires manual control to higher players. Cause when learning zerg mid/low diamond this mechanic becomes a crutch rather than a helpful ability.
|
I think the Terran players are way too comfortable with building one tech lab and actually unlocking ALL their units, provided they have a factory + starport. This is what is what I find most frustrating. They build one of each structure (a paltry investment) and with tech lab switching, they can get every single unit in their arsenal. Because of this, they don't have to make a commitment to any type of tech tree.
You have shitty scouting and you've been building the wrong units for the last 5 minutes? No problem, lemme just switch some add-ons and get a response up in ~40 seconds. The reactor/techlab switching just makes it easier for Terran to play catch up really fast if they were outplayed. This is a little frustrating for P and Z players because if they don't actively scout they are punished severely, in all matchups. Whereas for Terran, they really don't get punished badly because of how strong marine/marauder is, and if they need to muster up a response very quickly to something P or Z has been actively preparing for 5+ minutes, they just need to put in the appropriate addons, and voila, problem solved.
I think a good idea is to include a timer for switching techlabs / reactors. Maybe a 5 second detachment / 5 second attachment timer (i was leaning towards 10 seconds for each, though) so that there is a delay in switching around buildings.
|
The Tech Lab point is the closest to legit. It comes out quick, cheap, and allows instate tech switch from Repears to Marauders, two of the most powerful units for early map control.
The rest of the points are Whine.
The Zerg are not supposed to be the "aggressive" race. They are the "infesting" race. Zerg take expansions. The only reason they get the aggro impression is because the 6-pool used to be broken in SC1.
Creep is fine. It makes shit faster. Upgraded Zerglings and Roaches don't need it. Mutalisks don't need it.
The real problem with Zerg is lack of flexibility and difficulty pressuring an opponent with a solid, non-farm wall.
And phrases like "The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but...." is fucking ridiculous. BS phrases like this are an indicator that you're typing this out of frustration. A creative mind could think of a million solutions to any (perceived) problems with creep or any aspect of the game.
The mechanics you have issues with are part of the game design. It's not Brood War, and Blizzard isn't going to make any radical changes to appease Internet rage.
|
On September 02 2010 22:48 Tac-Tics wrote: The mechanics you have issues with are part of the game design. It's not Brood War, and Blizzard isn't going to make any radical changes to appease Internet rage. Are you Dustin Browder for such an statements?
|
On September 02 2010 02:19 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. It's a mechanic that is a handicap instead of bonus and makes the race who's strengths are supposed to be it's mobility be completely immobile. I honestly see where Blizzard was coming from, but honestly they implemented it terribly. The only time Zerg can be aggressive with the current implementation of creep is when they have a definite advantage over the opponent. You cannot harass or do quick counter attacks with anything that are not speedlings or mutalisks and I'm not even gonna go into Hydras.
The real only fix to this is to keep creep, but instead of mobility bonus it should be HP Regen. This is because it promotes aggressive play and makes creep a place to fall back to after an attack instead of a mandatory TO attack. On creep speed is now the same as off creep speed (can be adjusted for certain units)
I don't understand your argument here at all. It's one thing to say Zerg ought to be faster and another to make some sort of twisted assertion that a speed boost on creep is a flaw(?). It also doesn't make sense to say it's a problem if it permits Zerg to do something else. Honestly, if Zerg was forced to be aggressive all the time, I'd much more easily conclude that that is the flaw than anything else. There may be better ways to play a race, but every option ought to be available. It doesn't help, or make anything more interesting, to limit options. Expanding options is almost always the better choice. As said before, creep doesn't make Zerg immobile, which you seem to be trying to say somehow. It just makes them more mobile elsewhere. Right now, there is hardly any combo more mobile than muta/ling. Hydra roach is a little clumsy, but with speed upgrade on the roaches it's better. Ultras are wayyy faster than they were in BW, and they can actually keep up okay with the rest of your army. Hydras are the lone unit that's exceedingly slow by comparison, and that is something that can be compensated for. By that I mean, I basically don't agree with anything you're saying about Zerg's mobility. In BW, you really couldn't do speedy things with anything other than mutas and lings anyway, so your point about harrassment is a little silly. How many units should Zerg be able to harass with? In what way? Those are important questions. Honestly, too, speed roaches and speed banelings can move really fast compared to some opposing compositions.
I think what he's saying is that Zerg shouldn't just be mobile for defensive purposes, which is all that the game really allows with creep. Many zerg units (specifically, the hydra) are terribly slow off-creep, so a lot of people think removing creep speed boost (or lowering it) and giving all zerg units in general a speed boost would do well.
On September 02 2010 22:43 junemermaid wrote: I think the Terran players are way too comfortable with building one tech lab and actually unlocking ALL their units, provided they have a factory + starport. This is what is what I find most frustrating. They build one of each structure (a paltry investment) and with tech lab switching, they can get every single unit in their arsenal. Because of this, they don't have to make a commitment to any type of tech tree.
You have shitty scouting and you've been building the wrong units for the last 5 minutes? No problem, lemme just switch some add-ons and get a response up in ~40 seconds. The reactor/techlab switching just makes it easier for Terran to play catch up really fast if they were outplayed. This is a little frustrating for P and Z players because if they don't actively scout they are punished severely, in all matchups. Whereas for Terran, they really don't get punished badly because of how strong marine/marauder is, and if they need to muster up a response very quickly to something P or Z has been actively preparing for 5+ minutes, they just need to put in the appropriate addons, and voila, problem solved.
I think a good idea is to include a timer for switching techlabs / reactors. Maybe a 5 second detachment / 5 second attachment timer (i was leaning towards 10 seconds for each, though) so that there is a delay in switching around buildings.
I think Raelcun's (was it Raelcun?) suggestion for academy tech would work well.
|
Disagree on tech lab. Zerg can techswitch instantly if they only built the building.
|
Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the Techlab gets bashed for enabling fast unit switches, when terran of all races has the hardest time to reconfigure its unit composition? Especially when it comes from Zergs?
Due to the Barracks/Factory/Starport split, Terrans will have to invest into many new structures and leave old structures unused when switching from bio to air or from mech to bio. Yes, they can recycle the techlab - awesome! Still you are stuck with stuff you don't need and the time you need to transition is really high. Compare that to Zerg, that can actually invest in all unit structures and can reconfigure their army in each production cycle. But the techlab is still teh evil, because it unlocks TWO different units.
The creep is a different beast.. I don't think the problem is the speed bonus, but that it's way easier to combat creep spread than to promote it. So how about the following buff: As soon as a tumor has covered his maximum area, he goes into a 10 sec cooldown and then grows, gaining +40% hp, increasing the creep area supported by 2 and increasing the cooldown by 10 secs. This way, over time the creep WILL spread unless they enemy takes the fight deep into the Zerg territory. If that should prove to be insufficient you could rule that a transfuse instantly increases the tumor level by 1.
|
On September 02 2010 02:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 02:19 Snowfield wrote:When Terran can tech switch from reapers into marauders INSTANTLY with no punishing factor it is terrible game design. When you can go from a banshee into any air unit you want INSTANTLY Protoss can do the same no? i mean, they can change form stalkers to zealots INSTANTLY and void rays to phoenixes INSTANTLY aswell Good. Then make the tech lab match my cybernetics core costs.
You need only one CC but for Terran you need on every Barracks a Tech Lab and still do you want to have the same cost, huh? Nice...
|
You guys do remember that u nee a teclab or Reactor vor each unit producing structure? Tec-buildings for Toss and Zerg are build only once...
edit: damn registration took 2 long
|
On September 02 2010 23:02 synapse wrote: I think Raelcun's (was it Raelcun?) suggestion for academy tech would work well.
That requires adding an additional building to the game. Adding attachment timers to a building would probably take a few lines of code.
|
On September 02 2010 23:14 Tenebra wrote: You guys do remember that u nee a teclab or Reactor vor each unit producing structure? Tec-buildings for Toss and Zerg are build only once...
That's not really the huge problem. The bigger problem is the fact that Terrans have the advantage in the early game with the ability to switch reactors and tech labs. In the long run, like you say, it is a huge pain to keep building 50/50 which also take a lot of time. BUT this is very much nill in the early game when Terrans can use this to their full advantage to get Reapers and Banshees and some cutsie unit out very quickly.
Also people keep saying nerf the terran. nerf the terran. Shouldn't we buff rather than nerf? If Terran is too strong, shouldn't we buff the zerg and protoss? Generally more speed/more damage, less time might let you explore more options (again, not all the time, but some times as well)
|
OP brings up a lot of valid points.
My main problem with Zerg is still that their units are too expensive. I miss the cheap hydra which looked completely awesome in large masses.
Bring Hydra back to 1 food and lower cost! For the love of the flying spaghetti monster!
|
On September 02 2010 23:05 Thrombozyt wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the Techlab gets bashed for enabling fast unit switches, when terran of all races has the hardest time to reconfigure its unit composition? Especially when it comes from Zergs? .
Yes, but it's been proven on TL again and again that zerg noobs are the whiniest people on the planet. Do you remember when they nerfed the roach from being an invincible killing machine that could kill a thor with 2v1 micro into an almost invincible killing machine (they nerfed it again 2 more times)? -QQZNoob: OH LOL BLIZZ HATE ON Z. ROACH USELESS!! NERF IMMORTALS!!
Terran is OP right now, blizz shouldnt nerf the $**t out of it like som zergs would like to propose.
User was warned for this post
|
There is a reason why every zerg goes Muta/Ling/Bling nearly every game
Yeah it is because most of them underrate Infestors and because Roach upgrades cost too much and are too late in the tech tree. When roaches were grossly overpowered in beta the creep mechanic didn't cause them not to be used. Hydralisks could probably use a rework but they are the only unit that is really hurt by the creep mechanic.
As for Terran, I'm still 99% convinced the major part of the problem is stim. A single upgrade giving 50% movement bonus and 50% damage bonus is just broken. It might have worked in BW but it is game breaking in SC2. Before they do anything else to try to balance the bio ball they need to lower stim first and see how it feels. If you forget to research stim before the first big battle it turns a decisive win into a decisive loss, the effect is just way too large.
|
On September 02 2010 23:05 Thrombozyt wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the Techlab gets bashed for enabling fast unit switches, when terran of all races has the hardest time to reconfigure its unit composition? Especially when it comes from Zergs?
Due to the Barracks/Factory/Starport split, Terrans will have to invest into many new structures and leave old structures unused when switching from bio to air or from mech to bio. Yes, they can recycle the techlab - awesome! Still you are stuck with stuff you don't need and the time you need to transition is really high. Compare that to Zerg, that can actually invest in all unit structures and can reconfigure their army in each production cycle. But the techlab is still teh evil, because it unlocks TWO different units.
The problem with the versatility of the tech lab is during earlier parts of the game. Generally, Terran can have every unit (with exception to the thor + bc) unlocked within 5 minutes in the game, and none of the other races can know what the Terran is going without committing resources purely for scouting (observers or overseers). After figuring out what the Terran is doing, they can then start getting an appropriate counter build going. However, for other races, it often takes time to get the proper counter during which the Terran can do an attack that can end the game outright. Terran doesn't need to scout what the other player is doing. It doesn't matter for them, really, since their 1/1/1 opening can adjust to anything the other races can throw at them within the early game.
So it isn't as broken as I've outlined above, but thats the general core problem of the versatility of the tech labs. It doesn't force the Terran to commit to anything early game while the other races must. Because of the lack of commitment, Terran has a multitude of timing attacks that are all approximately at the same time that are all relatively strong. The other races do not have similar timing attacks because Terran can get a response together rather quickly.
In later stages of the game, yes, Terran is punished severely if the opponent pulls out a tech switch, since as the scale of the game increases, so does the cost for Terran to switch tech trees. The reactor kind of makes up for this delayed response Terran can suffer, but the Terran has to actively scout in the late game for tech surprises. In the early game, however, Terran does not have to worry about anything other races can throw at them.
EDIT: Does this make Terran easier to play? Somewhat. Does it make Terran OP? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. High level players realized how strong the 1/1/1 openings are and how easy they are to disguise & prevent scouting. This can make TvX very frustrating for the X player. Playing in the dark is really not fun.
|
Like the Post OP
well thought out and some interesting ideas.
my 2 cents
#Creep is not really an issue for Zerg IMO....it is tempting to believe it is a handicap as Zerg units perform so much better on creep than off it but...... the real problem here is that supply for supply a Terran army of any reasonable unit composition will roll over a Zerg army of equal size, unless the Z units are positioned just right (position is not as important for T, any giant clump will do as every unit has a better effective range)
so the onus is pretty much on the Z to micro his unit near perfect to hold his own in a battle. failure to do so result in losing the battle by a hefty margin. Creep facilitates this to a better extent thus creating the illusion creep is the problem as its the variable factor.
even baneling play has to be executed perfectly..or stimed marines will just kite your Bling's while siege tanks blow them up and an Infestor anywhere near a siege tank lasts bout 3 nano seconds once again requiring flawless unit control
#Tech labs the 1/1/1 build and a single tech lab give the Terran access to the vast majority of there entire tech tree and can be reached 7-8 Mins into any game add an armory and the only unit not available is what? the BC?
combine this with
#Mules allowing the Terran 200 more mineral per min of a single base than any other race and mineral sink units that are super effective anti air (marines) or light ground (hellions)
I'm sure more open maps will potentially solve a lot of balance problems allowing easier surround options for Z and multiple attack paths .....but why isnt balancing Zerg units to be more effective per point of supply an option too?
or forcing Terran to make a few more decisions other than when do build my tech labs Zerg are forced into making 4-5 crucial and potentially devastating decisions in the first 7-8 mins of every ZvT....Roaches? lair? extra queen? spine? FE? more drones? bling nest? evo chamber -> spore/potential cloak banshee?
|
On September 02 2010 22:48 Tac-Tics wrote:
The Zerg are not supposed to be the "aggressive" race. They are the "infesting" race. Zerg take expansions. The only reason they get the aggro impression is because the 6-pool used to be broken in SC1.
Aside from being a cheesy soft counter to forge FE in BW, 6 pool isn't even considered. I have no idea how you lose to 6 pool in any other situation (since you say it's broken). I have never seen a serious 6 pool in BW in C ladder or higher.
Zerg is said to be aggressive because it needs to be aggressive on harass. The zerg army is like glass. It has to avoid a direct confrontation unless it is semi all-in.
|
Poland2 Posts
one thought considering a "creep handicap problem". How about, instead of yelling how sick the speed of zerg is, add one more creep feature - Terran and Protoss'es units are slower on creep! That filthy, quasi-ground makes their legs/caterpillars/etc. caving in.. . What do you think about that?
|
On September 02 2010 22:48 Tac-Tics wrote: The Zerg are not supposed to be the "aggressive" race. They are the "infesting" race. Zerg take expansions. The only reason they get the aggro impression is because the 6-pool used to be broken in SC1.
You have clearly never played BW. 6-pool is a terrible build. 4/5-pool ftw.
|
There are changes that have already been decided.
We will have to wait, play 1.1 for a while and from that new position decide what, if anything, is still a problem.
There are probably 50,000 ways to "fix" any given set of problems, but Blizzard has decided on a dozen or so.
These dozen or so changes will alleviate some problems and create new problems.
It seems like this thread is dedicated to making changes yet disregards the fact that new changes are already coming. We cannot simply jump over 1.1 and theorize patch 1.2 changes without first hand experience on what 1.1 will change.
We also cannot simply add changes to 1.1 without knowing if the imminent changes themselves are already good enough.
We now play the waiting game.
|
On September 02 2010 23:02 Cibron wrote: Disagree on tech lab. Zerg can techswitch instantly if they only built the building.
This thread in general has a very healthy discussion. Thank you for bringing so much insight and thought into your post.
|
The Power of the Marauder Honestly I think the marauders are an awesome unit and amazing to play with (terran main) but i can admit that they are overpowered in the early game and in certain aspects. First off marauders give free map control for the whole early game and forces protoss to go tier 2 instantly which eliminates FE play for Toss while letting Terran doing anything they want. The second problem is there upgrades which makes marauders into super heroes. Concussive shells disallows any micro from the opponent and punishes skirmishes and harassment. Stim and marauders is just ridiculous in how fast marauders can kill anything armored, how fast they become (lol synergy), and how little drawbacks are there from using it. I'm not gonna even get into marauder drops which are completely stupid (again im a terran main)
Just like having to go tier 2 vs hydras in PvZ in Brood war made protoss players unable to fast expand...right?
The game's still young, and theres plenty of unexplored builds. stop bitching and work out a solution perhaps?
|
As far as i remember the Hydralisk wasn't a hardcounter to Zealots .
|
I believe that the majority of balance complaints from people come from poor execution and mechanics. People don't seem to pay attention to that side of the game much when they analyze replays.
The reason your hydra army got stomped on when you retreated isn't necessarily because they are too slow off creep. It's because you're missing 20 of 'em in your amy when you failed to inject larvae for the last 2 minutes.
Develop good mechanics! It's one of the few solutions that helps in ANY situation!
|
I totally agree with your insight on the tech lab. Terran's don't have to mule the entire game, and what they have is essentially a free maphack. I can't imagine how simple it is to scan and do a tech switch, especially when all the units are at a T's disposal.
Not sure about TvP, but in TvZ, it is way too punishing for a Zerg to have anything less than a perfect unit mix. Terrans don't have to worry about this too much, seeing as how their units tend to be flexible in different scenarios.
In fact, it doesn't even matter how much Zerg is ahead. Rarely do I see them on the aggressive, considering the speed off the creep and the turtling capabilities of terran, and this defensive play allows T to catch up. What ends up as a possible victory for zerg during early - mid game usually turns out to be a long-winded macro game.
In Brood War, a dark swarm solved every camping problem. Can you imagine a ZvT without it? Anyone remember that FBH vs savior game on python? A 200/200 timing push seems to be yet another issue here.
|
On September 02 2010 23:18 junemermaid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 23:02 synapse wrote: I think Raelcun's (was it Raelcun?) suggestion for academy tech would work well. That requires adding an additional building to the game. Adding attachment timers to a building would probably take a few lines of code.
In the early alpha, you needed a Merc Compound to build a reaper but it was scrapped in favor of putting reapers on the tech lab. It was shown in Blizzard's 2nd Battle Report from back in February. So it probably wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility to bring it back.
I'd be in favor of it but I'm also curious to see the effect of the longer build times. It's a small change but it does make reapers a bit less mass-able which is definitely a problem.
|
Reapers are not the problem by themselves, the problem is that defending reaper rush is like participating in paralympic games - even if you win, you are still retarded(behind in tech/economy).
|
On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote:If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins.
Agreed. I'm not sure if our "skill at defending" will ever increase to the point where we have more common BW-like macro games. The defensive advantages in BW are quite obvious and many of them are missing in SC2.
|
With regards to the flexibility that tech labs give in their opening of multiple tech paths rather easily vs the necessity of building many tech labs for many baracks / starports / factories: perhaps something similar to what happened to warp gates early in the beta? Eg. something which makes them a little less powerful early on without radically changing the game or nerfing them significantly in the long run.
Say, for instance their build time was increased somewhat. Maybe from their current 25 to 35-40 seconds. Then from either the e-bay, armoury or possibly the proposed academy building you have an upgrade that brings that tech lab build time down to 20s or even less. Perhaps if it were far enough up the tech tree (maybe requires Armoury, but is researched at one of the other buildings) then it would apply to the reactor as well, reducing that build time down somewhat. What this would mean is that in the long run if you need to make a lot of addons for a lot of structures then you will save time, however, it would punish tech-labbing a tonne of production structures early on to mass these "Tier 1.5" units heavily. Reaper build time wouldn't need to be increased from how it is currently if this were the case and it would slightly slow infantry upgrades and the build up of critical kill-masses of marauders.
I think the map issue is by far the biggest. The map pool in BroodWar had a massive influence on game balance, and with the current crop of ladder maps we can see Blizzard making a VERY poor imitation of korean BW pro scene maps, with all the usual features we're all used to now - small ramps, chokes at base entrances, natural expansions, neutral buildings - and yet most of these maps are pretty god-awful. Other maps still hold on to crap like wide open naturals just thrown in without thought.
Some have in other threads said that if Blizzard lets maphacking and other cheating run rampant on the new battle.net then it will have lost its one attractive feature and people will play elsewhere, but I think the piss poor crop of ladder maps is a far more pressing issue with regards to this. Well designed maps could do more for game balance than any amount of balance patches, especially since through the beta and now the upcoming patch Blizzard has favoured, in place of actual balance patches simply nerfing the flavour of the month once enough people whine about it. They have made some positive balance changes too, but there has been a lot of pandering to those same masses for whom they keep this dumbed down map pool in order to spare them from 'complex' maps. The one moderately interesting map in the pool Incineration Zone (even though it was composed entirely of very small spaces) was removed pre release, probably because it was 'too complicated'.
I think the Xel'Naga watch tower is probably the clearest indication of this dumbing down. It's just too simple, too easy. It's map control for the instant gratification generation. A newbie's guide to controlling space. Where before you would actually need map presence and active scouting now you can just sit a unit next to the tower and gain vision of half of the map. This is especially apparent on the smaller maps (the majority of the maps in the pool). If they must stay in the game, I think a solution might be to have them function like sensor towers (except without with big white area circle on the map, their positions are already marked anyway) so they are useful to an intelligent player but don't provide outright vision.
Even then I think it's a bit lazy, but we definitely need larger maps in any case, where the area the towers cover will be less pronounced and more localised, and especially larger maps with more space for actual tactics to take place in, things like ye olde flaking manoeuvre. Almost every map at the moment is cut up into of small corridors of space divided by impassable space, doodads or height transitions, and any medium sized area is linked to the rest of the map by choke points and smaller corridors. Again, it feels like the newbie's guide to starcraft tactics. Almost as if we are all playing some tutorial maps designed to train new players "look, here's a choke point! You can use this as a force multiplier! It means that if you have your stuff spread out on one side and he comes in through it you'll win, isn't that fantastic!" So many maps feel very artificial in this way; the first few levels of a puzzle game where we are introduced to the various features which in later levels we would see arrayed in ways which challenge us would be presented in a simple fashion similar to this.
Likewise with gold minerals. It's just so artificial. Instead of placing an expansion in the middle of the map, which while more difficult to defend of course would give you another base so that's going to be advantageous, no... there's a GOLD expansion! "Look" it screams "I'm important and tactically significant... because I'm GOLD." I don't mind the idea of having gold minerals as such, especially in place of say an expansion with just more nodes but it's badly used and another sign of SC:Dumbed Down.
I don't know where Blizzard are spending all these millions on E-Sports but it certainly doesn't seem to be in developing decent maps. And they seem totally unaware of this. I mean adding rocks to Desert Oasis to make it easier to defend your natural? (They pretty much did the same with Scrap Station too) Remove the retarded maps from the fucking pool, everyone I know has the worst ones blacklisted in any case. Instead spending over a month tinkering with the build time on this, the damage bonus on that and the cost of this by 5 seconds, a few points or a couple of minerals, go out and find some people who actually know how to build decent maps. If all the maps in the pool didn't force you to clump your units with their constant chokes and tiny corridors of space then half the problems people complain about would disappear. Zerg players, for instance, might find themselves able to actually flank, pincer and out-manoeuvre the Terran slowball. Ultralisks might feel better if they weren't constantly having to squeeze through and fight in spaces that only 2 can fit through. If the maps were bigger and more diverse then more Protoss players might find a use/place in their builds for carriers. I don't think maps can fix the Archon but that unit is just so god-awful compared with its predecessor that I don't even know where to start. Hell bigger, better, more interesting maps might make the reaper useful in the mid and late game since bigger maps make speed more valuable and more interesting maps are going to have more interesting layouts of terrain that they can exploit. This might also might encourage people to use warp prisms more often.
|
On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
I always laugh, and then cry, when I see someone cite ladder win percentage as an indicator of balance. Sadly Dustin Browder has done this very thing without realizing that the matchmaker is what is creating the illusion of balance here.
Think about it... if Terran was super powerful and Zerg super weak, the matchmaker would eventually match lower skilled Terrans against higher skilled Zerg so that each group would achieve their target win ratio of 50%.
Ladder stats prove nothing when a match maker is involved!
A much more reliable measure is tournament results. When you see that the MLG Raleigh had 2 zerg in the top 32 that tells you something.
|
On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins.
ladder stats are skewed match making pairs people to have a 50% win ratio, or as close to it as possible.
|
I agree with a couple of things.
The marauder HP nerf and merging a HP research upgrade with the Marine combat shield is a good idea.
Also the building idea. I don't mind tech labs, but the fact all they need to get is a tech lab and they have access to all their units in that structure is a little ridiculous (minus 3 units which require a building). It's too hard to see what "tech" they have when they have it all in 1 building.
With Protoss, all gateway units are available after constructing 3 buildings. 1 building for stargate (+Nexus), 1 building for robo.
That is double the buildings required to obtain access to all Protoss's arsenal compared to Terran.
I understand diversity and that no team should be the same, but I can't help but think that it's too hard to scout what Terran are exactly doing when if you see 1/1/1, then you just have to have the unit composition and tech to counter everything Terran can build. What I mean is, if I send an observer into the Terran base, the most information I can receive about what kind of army he has (other than seeing it of course) and what to expect him to be building is based on how many of each tech building he has (3 barracks, 1 factory and 1 starport obviously means some bio spam), and what has tech labs and what has reactors.
Zerg, you just need to see what buildings he has and you instantly know what to build to counter.
Protoss, all their T3 units have a building so you can see what T3 units he is getting and counter accordingly too.
In some cases, if you scout Terran all you can do is hope for the best that his army composition is weak against yours, whereas if you scout Protoss/Zerg, you instantly know what army composition you need. That is what I am getting at here.
As for MULEs, I personally feel that all you need is 1 MULE and your economy is equal to Protoss/Zerg (on 1 base). Protoss because of chrono boosted probes and Zerg because of multiple drone production. So if you just build 1 MULE per each base that your opponent has, then the rest can be spent on scans to see exactly what they're doing, or, save 100 minerals on a supply depot and you will have an equal economy to theirs.
|
Tech lab is the only one I'd buy from the argument.
I seriously don't understand why Zergs believe they're supposed to be aggressive all the time.
You guys were not in BW, and you guys are not meant to be aggressive. What you guys have is speed and explosive macro, that does not equal to being aggressive. (btw, being aggresive means you have the upper hand in army force, which basically means OP)
Battle dynamics didn't change much at all. The only thing that changed is game speed, which does make those 'spell interactions' harder imo, but they are still there. Fungal growth? Remember the queen's ensnare from BW? True fungal growth is much more powerful of a spell, but the way it shoots out is the same. Such spell mechanics were there in BW, and I can trace every spell's origin back to BW that's in SC2.
This post, other than Terran's tech lab, is nothing more than whining, sorry for being harsh.
|
People seem to forget timings when comparing tech labs to the protoss/zerg teching system. You do need to get a tech lab on all of your barracks to make those specific units out of them, but the quick and relatively early access to tech labs is partially why terran early game is so powerful.
For example, a 5 rax opening doesnt start with 5 barracks being placed down at once, it starts with one barracks + tech lab, then another, then another, then the last few barracks are usually placed simultaneously. But in between these barracks, units are still being produced, and the speed in which the units are produced from the first one or two barracks when compared to waiting for a cybernetics core or a lair/roach warren to finish is something that people need to factor into their posts.
|
On September 02 2010 08:44 TSL-Lore wrote: A couple other issues regarding gameplay:
(1) SCVs that are repairing should be auto-targetted, just like attacking SCVs are. It's ridiculous that a Thor surrounded by SCVs repairing it is invincible to lings, because the lings cannot reach the Thor. Furthermore, it's really difficult to manually target the SCVs because the damn Thor is so big on top, so you can't physically click on them. This is extremely aggravating.
(2) Correct me if i am wrong, but Mutalisks shoot at Medivacs BEFORE shooting at Marines!!?!?!?!? This, combined with the SCV auto-repair not being targetted, just doesn't make any sense. I had a swarm of lings and roaches and mutalisks attacking an infantry group. My flock of Mutas were busy chasing medivacs around while my lings and roaches were hitting the infantry and getting owned because infantry just owns roach/ling so badly. GAAHHHHH SO INFURIATING.
Same thing's been happening to me lately.
Lol i think those are ninja buffs' by blizzard to make Terran even more powerful. I mean, to the casual gamer, they're not gonna notice these things, as broken as it is. Thus, on paper, everything looks 'balanced'. I mean, the casual gamer isn't gonna go around looking up targeting priorities and shit (gosh i don't even though I should).
Leave it to HoTS, they'll ninja edit targeting priorities for zerg units, and Terran won't seem so Powerful anymore. Toss will have to wait till their expansion though.
|
Barracks + Tech lab = Gateway + Cybernetics core
Factory + Tech lab = Robotics Facility
Factory + Tech lab + Armory = Robotics Facility + Robotics Bay
There is no difference in teching for Terran for most of the game. For air Terran needs a tech lab for advanced air giving them an extra step over Protoss, they also need a separate building just for air upgrades while Protoss gets theirs out of the cyber core. Protoss has an extra step reaching their T3 ground with the Twilight Council. Those are the only real differences.
The tech lab really isn't part of the problem. You also didn't mention that build times on the basic units are based on having reactors for them. Building a marine from a barracks with a tech lab is inefficient as is building one off a barracks with no reactor because they have increased build times based on the existence of the reactor already.
Also mules aren't some huge advantage. Mules are weaker than chrono boost as a mechanic and if Terran doesn't use mules early they will fall behind economically. The Mules advantage is it allows Terran to sit on one base longer than other races. Every time I play Zerg or Protoss for a while and then play Terran I'm always shocked at just how long it takes Terran to saturate the first base compared to the other races, without the Mule Terran would be in a lot of trouble.
|
Protoss has an extra step reaching their T3 ground with the Twilight Council. Those are the only real differences.
Is that a difference though? as terran needs a Ghost Academy for ghosts
|
On September 03 2010 01:29 Snowfield wrote:Show nested quote +Protoss has an extra step reaching their T3 ground with the Twilight Council. Those are the only real differences. Is that a difference though? as terran needs a Ghost Academy for ghosts
Well protoss needs a twilight council at the same step as Terran getting a Ghost Academy and then they also need a Templar Archives and/or Dark Temple to build the units. They do have an extra step in there for sure.
|
On September 03 2010 01:27 EnderCN wrote: Barracks + Tech lab = Gateway + Cybernetics core
Factory + Tech lab = Robotics Facility
Factory + Tech lab + Armory = Robotics Facility + Robotics Bay
There is no difference in teching for Terran for most of the game. For air Terran needs a tech lab for advanced air giving them an extra step over Protoss, they also need a separate building just for air upgrades while Protoss gets theirs out of the cyber core. Protoss has an extra step reaching their T3 ground with the Twilight Council. Those are the only real differences.
The tech lab really isn't part of the problem. You also didn't mention that build times on the basic units are based on having reactors for them. Building a marine from a barracks with a tech lab is inefficient as is building one off a barracks with no reactor because they have increased build times based on the existence of the reactor already.
Also mules aren't some huge advantage. Mules are weaker than chrono boost as a mechanic and if Terran doesn't use mules early they will fall behind economically. The Mules advantage is it allows Terran to sit on one base longer than other races. Every time I play Zerg or Protoss for a while and then play Terran I'm always shocked at just how long it takes Terran to saturate the first base compared to the other races, without the Mule Terran would be in a lot of trouble.
A few problems with your comparisons. First, it takes FAR less time to get Barracks+TL than Gate+Core, ditto with Factory+TL versus Robo (especially if you are building the Lab on a Barracks). I will admit that Armory tech is much closer, but not quite at the same level (2 tech structures and 2 unit-producers for Protoss, 2 unit-producers and 1 tech for Terran). Nobody here is so naive to think that late-game balance is messed up. Early-game is the problem. Early on, Terran is able to access so much tech so quickly that it becomes incredibly difficult for the other player to deal with it all.
The TL/Reactor deal is really quite exaggerated here. The "basic units" in this case are Marines (which are just fine being pumped out of several rax), Hellions (which aren't all that critical outside of harass), and Vikings and Medivacs (by which point you should have devoted a unit-producing structure to building a Reactor for). I don't remember anyone complaining about it being too hard to make their Vikings and whatnot, and it isn't even relevant to the early-game problem.
Finally, MULEs are an INCREDIBLE advantage. They allow a Terran player to access something for nothing. A Terran can cut SCVs early and go for extremely heavy aggression and still be able to expand simply because they have extra income from the MULEs. If Protoss wants to be aggressive early, they have to cut worker production significantly and use their Chronoboosts on units or Warp Gate tech, meaning that their aggression has to damage the other player as much as they are damaging themselves. If Zerg wants to be aggressive early, they have to use all their larvae for offensive units, wrecking their income and usually turning things into an all-in play. Thanks to MULEs, Terran has no such limitation. The most significant factor by far, though, is the relative lack of time sensitivity for MULEs. Protoss has to time Chronos to be useful for the unit production and for upgrades; if P misses their timing, then they won't be able to get that time back and will have to spend Chrono on something else that is likely less relevant (compare boosting a WG cooldown to boosting WG tech). Zerg has to time Injections almost perfectly, or risk losing larvae that cannot be recovered bar making another Hatchery or two or spending the energy on the less relevant Creep Tumors or Transfusions. If Terran misses a MULE, then they can just spam them out whenever they please, especially later on when timings aren't as important. There is simply no comparing the mental energy spent on the subjects. Protoss and Zerg are forced to focus intensely on their macro mechanics or risk simply losing right then and there, meaning that Terran is more free to focus on micro and think about gameplay decisions. That difference in mental investment is the main problem of the MULE.
|
As much I want SC2 to improve, I don't wanna see BW die And dont mind my comment, i am Drunk atm and gonna leave korea in four days ;-(
|
change tech labs and reactors so they are different for every building so T can not jump in tech imho
|
On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins.
Hydra: Damage: 12(+1) AtkSpd: 0.83 Range: 5 (6 w/ Upgrade) HP: 80 Speed: 2.25 Cost: 100/50/2 Tier 2 No Special Abilities
Stalker: Damage: 10 + 4 vs Armored (+1/+0) AtkSpd: 1.44 Range: 6 HP: 160 Speed: 2.95 Cost: 125/50/2 Tier 1.5 Can Blink w/ Upgrade
The numbers speak for themselves. When you said "Insanely overpowered" if the speed was equal, you obviously meant to say "balanced" right?
|
I agree with most of what you said however the section about creep I couldnt disagree more :\ Zerg can do all those things but most players dont utilize Zerg's tools well, once the games been out longer this won't be a problem but for now people are still learning the race. Zerg is def the hardest race to master and to learn straight up (for most people at least). Once there are solid builds it wont be so bad, but until then we gotta work on making those builds! ^^ I think making the tech lab = the reactor time would be the best fix. 1) It would make tech switching harder for T 2) Terran would not be able to put on as much pressure in the beginning 3) Marauders would come out later and less quantity. 4) Reapers would be delayed so they would not be lethal to Zerg The problem TvP is Terrans bio and how much they can amass so fast, it just tears P gateway units apart.
ps I wouldnt take advice from decembvrie >_<
|
On September 02 2010 23:42 SubtleArt wrote:Show nested quote +The Power of the Marauder Honestly I think the marauders are an awesome unit and amazing to play with (terran main) but i can admit that they are overpowered in the early game and in certain aspects. First off marauders give free map control for the whole early game and forces protoss to go tier 2 instantly which eliminates FE play for Toss while letting Terran doing anything they want. The second problem is there upgrades which makes marauders into super heroes. Concussive shells disallows any micro from the opponent and punishes skirmishes and harassment. Stim and marauders is just ridiculous in how fast marauders can kill anything armored, how fast they become (lol synergy), and how little drawbacks are there from using it. I'm not gonna even get into marauder drops which are completely stupid (again im a terran main) Just like having to go tier 2 vs hydras in PvZ in Brood war made protoss players unable to fast expand...right? The game's still young, and theres plenty of unexplored builds. stop bitching and work out a solution perhaps? Well, isn't this because static defense was much better in BW? See an all-in 3hatch hydras and the protoss just mass cannons and fends it off. Cannons are much worse in this game and Marauders will just rip right through them. Not to mention Terran can quickly switch their build to tanks if the protoss mass cannons
|
On September 03 2010 02:53 throttled wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins. Hydra: Damage: 12(+1) AtkSpd: 0.83 Range: 5 (6 w/ Upgrade) HP: 80 Speed: 2.25 Cost: 100/50/2 Tier 2 No Special Abilities Stalker: Damage: 10 + 4 vs Armored (+1/+0) AtkSpd: 1.44 Range: 6 HP: 160 Speed: 2.95 Cost: 125/50/2 Tier 1.5 Can Blink w/ Upgrade The numbers speak for themselves. When you said "Insanely overpowered" if the speed was equal, you obviously meant to say "balanced" right?
Too bad a Hydra already beats a Stalker 1 on 1 due to having twice the DPS.
|
On September 03 2010 01:57 blubbdavid wrote: As much I want SC2 to improve, I don't wanna see BW die And dont mind my comment, i am Drunk atm and gonna leave korea in four days ;-( Fight on brotha man.
On September 03 2010 04:11 CookieFactory wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 02:53 throttled wrote:On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins. Hydra: Damage: 12(+1) AtkSpd: 0.83 Range: 5 (6 w/ Upgrade) HP: 80 Speed: 2.25 Cost: 100/50/2 Tier 2 No Special Abilities Stalker: Damage: 10 + 4 vs Armored (+1/+0) AtkSpd: 1.44 Range: 6 HP: 160 Speed: 2.95 Cost: 125/50/2 Tier 1.5 Can Blink w/ Upgrade The numbers speak for themselves. When you said "Insanely overpowered" if the speed was equal, you obviously meant to say "balanced" right? Too bad a Hydra already beats a Stalker 1 on 1 due to having twice the DPS. CookieFactory too bad you're misinformed, a Hydra and Stalker with no upgrades actually kill each other.
|
Wowowow many comments and many things I have to address.
First off creep is a handicap and you cant argue that if you have ever played zerg in BW. When zerg cannot be aggressive at all unless your at a definite advantage is terrible especially considering Zerg is supposed to be the aggressor. Also my change means that units off creep are now the same speed as on creep.
Second off the tech lab is way to versatile and you cannot compare it to other races as Terran has SOOOOO MANY HARD COUNTERS. Also tell me when you can swap a robo bay into a fleet beacon or a spire into a hydra den.
Yes marauders are broken in the early game as they stagnate gameplay and give terran free reign to do whatever they want in the early game.
Theres also alot of ridiculous comments here, but i cant address them individually.
EDIT: Oh forgot to say I didn't write the dynamics section I pasted a part of Saracens article that i linked (I would recommend it btw its a great read)
|
On September 03 2010 04:20 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 01:57 blubbdavid wrote: As much I want SC2 to improve, I don't wanna see BW die And dont mind my comment, i am Drunk atm and gonna leave korea in four days ;-( Fight on brotha man. Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 04:11 CookieFactory wrote:On September 03 2010 02:53 throttled wrote:On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins. Hydra: Damage: 12(+1) AtkSpd: 0.83 Range: 5 (6 w/ Upgrade) HP: 80 Speed: 2.25 Cost: 100/50/2 Tier 2 No Special Abilities Stalker: Damage: 10 + 4 vs Armored (+1/+0) AtkSpd: 1.44 Range: 6 HP: 160 Speed: 2.95 Cost: 125/50/2 Tier 1.5 Can Blink w/ Upgrade The numbers speak for themselves. When you said "Insanely overpowered" if the speed was equal, you obviously meant to say "balanced" right? Too bad a Hydra already beats a Stalker 1 on 1 due to having twice the DPS. CookieFactory too bad you're misinformed, a Hydra and Stalker with no upgrades actually kill each other.
Uh no. Maybe if the stalker got the first shot off.
|
On September 03 2010 04:39 OHtRUe wrote: Wowowow many comments and many things I have to address.
First off creep is a handicap and you cant argue that if you have ever played zerg in BW. When zerg cannot be aggressive at all unless your at a definite advantage is terrible especially considering Zerg is supposed to be the aggressor. Also my change means that units off creep are now the same speed as on creep.
Second off the tech lab is way to versatile and you cannot compare it to other races as Terran has SOOOOO MANY HARD COUNTERS. Also tell me when you can swap a robo bay into a fleet beacon or a spire into a hydra den.
Yes marauders are broken in the early game as they stagnate gameplay and give terran free reign to do whatever they want in the early game.
Theres also alot of ridiculous comments here, but i cant address them individually.
EDIT: Oh forgot to say I didn't write the dynamics section I pasted a part of Saracens article that i linked (I would recommend it btw its a great read)
So people who disagree with you are ridiculous?
You are overrating how much creep is needed for Zerg aggression. The Hydralisk and pre-upgraded roaches depend on it, the rest of the units do not. You also obviously don't understand how the tech lab works from this. I already pointed it out in another post but the Tech lab is only a step in the teching tree for barracks.
Barracks = Gateway Barracks + TL = GW + cyber core
Factory + TL = robo facility.
Factory + TL + Armory = Robo Facility + Robo bay
Staport + TL = Stargate
Starport + TL + Fusion Core = Stargate + Fleet Beacon.
The Tech lab is not some magical building that lets Terran skip tech, they have basically the same tech tree as everyone else and then the added disadvantage of needing to place tech labs or reactors as well. The only building that gains any advantage from the tech lab is the barracks and since you need one on every single barracks it ends up being a disadvantage by mid game. Terran still has the least forgiving tech switching of any race because they go through the same system as everyone else but also have to juggle tech labs and reactors. This isn't something they could possibly nerf because it isn't an advantage.
|
ONe more actual issue affecting gameplay is that there is no indicator of skill in this game yet, diamond doesnt mean anything and i guess there is a lot of diamond who think they know everything about the game just because they are in that league resulting in too much of shittalk in every thread.
|
On September 03 2010 05:51 EnderCN wrote:
So people who disagree with you are ridiculous?
You are overrating how much creep is needed for Zerg aggression. The Hydralisk and pre-upgraded roaches depend on it, the rest of the units do not. You also obviously don't understand how the tech lab works from this. I already pointed it out in another post but the Tech lab is only a step in the teching tree for barracks.
Barracks = Gateway Barracks + TL = GW + cyber core
Factory + TL = robo facility.
Factory + TL + Armory = Robo Facility + Robo bay
Staport + TL = Stargate
Starport + TL + Fusion Core = Stargate + Fleet Beacon.
The Tech lab is not some magical building that lets Terran skip tech, they have basically the same tech tree as everyone else and then the added disadvantage of needing to place tech labs or reactors as well. The only building that gains any advantage from the tech lab is the barracks and since you need one on every single barracks it ends up being a disadvantage by mid game. Terran still has the least forgiving tech switching of any race because they go through the same system as everyone else but also have to juggle tech labs and reactors. This isn't something they could possibly nerf because it isn't an advantage.
barracks +tl =/= GW+ Cyber core, you dont need TL to be able to build factory. also you cant use cyber core as robo bay or fleet bacon. The imbalance is in how fast you can get your first thor, or first banshee in game with techlab from barrack to factory.
|
On September 02 2010 02:40 DTown wrote:The fact of the matter is that the tech-lab on barracks simultaneously enables very early production at minimal cost of a cliff-jumping extremely mobile unit that owns light, a very high-hp durable tank unit that devastates armored units and buildings, and a cheap all-purpose versatile high-dps unit that can attack ground or air. Relative to what is available to the other races in the early game, this variety is insane.
How this design was allowed to persist all through beta is beyond me. It seems to me like Blizzard could have made their jobs a lot easier by trying to alter this dynamic instead of the nightmare it has been to try and balance around it.
QFT. Terran has such an incredible variety of units... cliffjumping reapers, cloaked banshees, speedy drone-roasting hellions... and that's just their opening. But if you're facing zerg, you know what you're up against. It's ground units every time. Most of them aren't quick, most of them don't hit air, none of them are cloaked, all of them travel around the map on regular terrain.
I honestly don't see how to balance it without major changes. Zerg needs a non-standard unit that can be a real threat and something that takes special care to deal with... and terran needs less of them. In beta, I would have tried something like taking the banshee or the reaper away from terran and giving a comparable unit to zerg.
Without major changes, one big step in the right direction would be to make tech labs and reactors permanent. The unscoutable, nearly-instant, no-cost tech switches make terran so difficult to deal with.
I would also love to see something done with unit sizes and ranges. That tight terran bio ball of marines and marauders can pack so much damage output into a small space, and all of it has the range to hit their targets.
In limited size spaces (which current maps are full of), zerg can fit barely half as many hydras/roaches into an area, compared to how many marines/marauders will fit. And some of the roaches won't be close enough to fire. And the terran army will be stimmed, can walk faster, etc...
When terran units are just so much more cost-effective because of this, something needs to be done. Either make zerg more cost-effective or make stronger counters for it (fungal growth is nice, but so often they just stand there and blast away while getting healed. Maybe make it lower attack rate too?)
|
On September 03 2010 05:51 EnderCN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 04:39 OHtRUe wrote: Wowowow many comments and many things I have to address.
First off creep is a handicap and you cant argue that if you have ever played zerg in BW. When zerg cannot be aggressive at all unless your at a definite advantage is terrible especially considering Zerg is supposed to be the aggressor. Also my change means that units off creep are now the same speed as on creep.
Second off the tech lab is way to versatile and you cannot compare it to other races as Terran has SOOOOO MANY HARD COUNTERS. Also tell me when you can swap a robo bay into a fleet beacon or a spire into a hydra den.
Yes marauders are broken in the early game as they stagnate gameplay and give terran free reign to do whatever they want in the early game.
Theres also alot of ridiculous comments here, but i cant address them individually.
EDIT: Oh forgot to say I didn't write the dynamics section I pasted a part of Saracens article that i linked (I would recommend it btw its a great read) So people who disagree with you are ridiculous? You are overrating how much creep is needed for Zerg aggression. The Hydralisk and pre-upgraded roaches depend on it, the rest of the units do not. You also obviously don't understand how the tech lab works from this. I already pointed it out in another post but the Tech lab is only a step in the teching tree for barracks. Barracks = Gateway Barracks + TL = GW + cyber core Factory + TL = robo facility. Factory + TL + Armory = Robo Facility + Robo bay Staport + TL = Stargate Starport + TL + Fusion Core = Stargate + Fleet Beacon. The Tech lab is not some magical building that lets Terran skip tech, they have basically the same tech tree as everyone else and then the added disadvantage of needing to place tech labs or reactors as well. The only building that gains any advantage from the tech lab is the barracks and since you need one on every single barracks it ends up being a disadvantage by mid game. Terran still has the least forgiving tech switching of any race because they go through the same system as everyone else but also have to juggle tech labs and reactors. This isn't something they could possibly nerf because it isn't an advantage. No people who have no clue what they're talking about and make stupid comments with no argument are ridiculous.
Oh and for that unit list you forgot ultralisks and infestors which makes pretty much every ground unit a bitch to micro off creep instead of zerglings, its also impossible to retreat without losing the majority of your forces if your playing cross map as well.
Uhhh you kinda proved my point in your post even though you didn't notice. You can swap tech labs to circumvent tech and transition in an instant. Also saying that the 25 second tech lab build time is lengthy and disadvantageous is BS especially if you have APM you can use a spare factory to make tech labs and reactors in the mean time. Also there tech tree is pretty much a production building with a 25 second wait OR a production building that can be instantly swapped
|
|
Uhhh you kinda proved my point in your post even though you didn't notice. You can swap tech labs to circumvent tech and transition in an instant.t.
No I didn't. I showed just the opposite.
If a Protoss player wants to get out a colossus and he only has gateway and cybernetics core built he has to build a robo facility and a robo bay. If a Terran payer wants to get out a thor and he has barracks and tech lab built he has to build a factory and an armory and then either build a tech lab as well or swap out a pre-existing tech lab. The tech lab is an EXTRA step. If they completely removed the tech lab and just let Terran build all of their units without it they still would need the same number of buildings as a protoss for everything except the Barracks. I get what you are saying somewhat though i guess, if they removed the tech lab completely Terran might tech too fast because they wouldn't have that cyber core building they need between T1 and T2. That at least makes some sense. Tech labs as a whole are a disadvantage but the way the system works might make Terran transitions to T2 and T3 a little faster than they should be.
you cant use cyber core as robo bay or fleet bacon
You can't use a tech lab as an armory or fusion core, it is absolutely no different... This is not a hard concept. The tech lab is an extra layer of tech that Terran has to put on buildings to do what other races can do normally.
|
I read the entire original post, and I agree with it completely.
|
Good post, agree with most of your point, however i dont think the zerg creep is that bad, it just really easy to kill, but the speed bonus itself would give amazing advantage to flank on different maps with more open space, as it is happening already on DeltaQ.
There really should be topics, where only top tier players can comment, seriously.
|
Top tier players have commented on the creep speed bonus being a hindrance.
|
On September 03 2010 04:39 OHtRUe wrote: Wowowow many comments and many things I have to address.
First off creep is a handicap and you cant argue that if you have ever played zerg in BW. When zerg cannot be aggressive at all unless your at a definite advantage is terrible especially considering Zerg is supposed to be the aggressor. Also my change means that units off creep are now the same speed as on creep.
Second off the tech lab is way to versatile and you cannot compare it to other races as Terran has SOOOOO MANY HARD COUNTERS. Also tell me when you can swap a robo bay into a fleet beacon or a spire into a hydra den.
Yes marauders are broken in the early game as they stagnate gameplay and give terran free reign to do whatever they want in the early game.
Theres also alot of ridiculous comments here, but i cant address them individually.
EDIT: Oh forgot to say I didn't write the dynamics section I pasted a part of Saracens article that i linked (I would recommend it btw its a great read) You forgot to say that when Terran is going MMM against protoss and protoss gets collossi, the reactored starport can produce vikings to deal with them.
|
So finally registered after lurking for quite a while now.
About the Tech Lab thing: I think that one point people are missing is exactly how fast Terrans can tech compared to the other races. The Factory (tier 2) only requires a Barrack, while say a Hydra Den requires a Spawning Pool and then a Lair. You also can't really compare Terrans to Toss as a Factory doesn't require a Tech Lab, while a Robo Facility (or Stargate) requires a Cyber Core. To top it off, you can build a Tech Lab while building a Factory, and just switch the production buildings once the Factory is completed.
So basically, the time to tech to tier 2 for Terrans is about 120 seconds (Barracks -> Factory / Tech Lab), and the time it takes Toss to tech to tier 2 air is 175 seconds (Gateway -> Cyber Core -> Stargate). Hydras for Zerg take slightly longer than Toss at 185 seconds (Spawning Pool -> Lair -> Hydra Den). The times are all assuming the player goes straight for these tech without interference of sort. You can see that the time it takes for Terrans to reach tier 2 is ridiculously faster than the other 2 races, with the only drawback being the Starport requires a Factory (although getting a Starport only adds an additional 50 seconds to the 120 seconds, totalling up to 170 seconds which is still faster)
Also I do agree about how the creep issues affect Zerg. You need to spend valuable energy to start it off, taking time throughout the game to slowly spread it around, and then your opponent gets observers and quickly removes all the creep you spread. Currently, for me, creep is not a bonus, but a requirement for your units to be on par with other race's units. When you realize you're fighting with a bigger army and trying to retreat, they can easily take out many of your units unless you're using speedLings or Mutas. Units off-creep should move like they do on-creep (other than the Queen who's defensive-oriented), and instead enemy non-zerg units move slightly slower on creep.
Honestly, I think the issue with the Terrans is not the teching time, but rather how extremely cost effective the Terran units are.
|
On September 03 2010 05:22 CookieFactory wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 04:20 RoarMan wrote:On September 03 2010 01:57 blubbdavid wrote: As much I want SC2 to improve, I don't wanna see BW die And dont mind my comment, i am Drunk atm and gonna leave korea in four days ;-( Fight on brotha man. On September 03 2010 04:11 CookieFactory wrote:On September 03 2010 02:53 throttled wrote:On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins. Hydra: Damage: 12(+1) AtkSpd: 0.83 Range: 5 (6 w/ Upgrade) HP: 80 Speed: 2.25 Cost: 100/50/2 Tier 2 No Special Abilities Stalker: Damage: 10 + 4 vs Armored (+1/+0) AtkSpd: 1.44 Range: 6 HP: 160 Speed: 2.95 Cost: 125/50/2 Tier 1.5 Can Blink w/ Upgrade The numbers speak for themselves. When you said "Insanely overpowered" if the speed was equal, you obviously meant to say "balanced" right? Too bad a Hydra already beats a Stalker 1 on 1 due to having twice the DPS. CookieFactory too bad you're misinformed, a Hydra and Stalker with no upgrades actually kill each other. Uh no. Maybe if the stalker got the first shot off.
And they always do with no upgrades because they have longer range. Not to mention thats with no micro involved. And either way it's besides the point. in almost any situation a stalker do more damage per unit than a hydra because hydras have no armor and 80 hp and cannot retreat unless on creep, nor can the chase units unless on creep.
Stalkers are tier 1.5, Hydras are Tier 2. The comparison of damage done per unit should not be that close let alone in the stalkers favor.
|
On September 03 2010 08:31 Bobbeth wrote:
About the Tech Lab thing: I think that one point people are missing is exactly how fast Terrans can tech compared to the other races. The Factory (tier 2) only requires a Barrack, while say a Hydra Den requires a Spawning Pool and then a Lair. You also can't really compare Terrans to Toss as a Factory doesn't require a Tech Lab, while a Robo Facility (or Stargate) requires a Cyber Core. To top it off, you can build a Tech Lab while building a Factory, and just switch the production buildings once the Factory is completed.
So basically, the time to tech to tier 2 for Terrans is about 120 seconds (Barracks -> Factory / Tech Lab), and the time it takes Toss to tech to tier 2 air is 175 seconds (Gateway -> Cyber Core -> Stargate). Hydras for Zerg take slightly longer than Toss at 185 seconds (Spawning Pool -> Lair -> Hydra Den). The times are all assuming the player goes straight for these tech without interference of sort. You can see that the time it takes for Terrans to reach tier 2 is ridiculously faster than the other 2 races, with the only drawback being the Starport requires a Factory (although getting a Starport only adds an additional 50 seconds to the 120 seconds, totalling up to 170 seconds which is still faster)
The times are sort of misleading though. The Terran build time to get to their Starport might be 5 seconds faster than it takes to get to a Starport but it's at a pretty considerable cost to their other production. I don't think the times that the race gets to tier 2 can be indicative of any sort of threat, at least not as it applies to Terran. Terran is all about getting more production buildings which takes it longer than any other race comparatively.
How long does it take to build two barracks relative to one hatchery (not counting late game where you could make several at a time)? The question is inconsequential, it's just race differences. And a tech lab being readily available doesn't really blaze any trails in and of itself unless you have a lot of production buildings ready to take them.
|
On September 03 2010 09:06 ikester wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 08:31 Bobbeth wrote:
About the Tech Lab thing: I think that one point people are missing is exactly how fast Terrans can tech compared to the other races. The Factory (tier 2) only requires a Barrack, while say a Hydra Den requires a Spawning Pool and then a Lair. You also can't really compare Terrans to Toss as a Factory doesn't require a Tech Lab, while a Robo Facility (or Stargate) requires a Cyber Core. To top it off, you can build a Tech Lab while building a Factory, and just switch the production buildings once the Factory is completed.
So basically, the time to tech to tier 2 for Terrans is about 120 seconds (Barracks -> Factory / Tech Lab), and the time it takes Toss to tech to tier 2 air is 175 seconds (Gateway -> Cyber Core -> Stargate). Hydras for Zerg take slightly longer than Toss at 185 seconds (Spawning Pool -> Lair -> Hydra Den). The times are all assuming the player goes straight for these tech without interference of sort. You can see that the time it takes for Terrans to reach tier 2 is ridiculously faster than the other 2 races, with the only drawback being the Starport requires a Factory (although getting a Starport only adds an additional 50 seconds to the 120 seconds, totalling up to 170 seconds which is still faster)
The times are sort of misleading though. The Terran build time to get to their Starport might be 5 seconds faster than it takes to get to a Starport but it's at a pretty considerable cost to their other production. I don't think the times that the race gets to tier 2 can be indicative of any sort of threat, at least not as it applies to Terran. Terran is all about getting more production buildings which takes it longer than any other race comparatively. How long does it take to build two barracks relative to one hatchery (not counting late game where you could make several at a time)? The question is inconsequential, it's just race differences. And a tech lab being readily available doesn't really blaze any trails in and of itself unless you have a lot of production buildings ready to take them. Uhm if you have a Factory, Barracks, and Starport which is 3 building, which is a total of 450 minerals and 200 gas I believe, and about 2 and a half minutes, you can make use of a Tech Lab switching.
Is that a lot? No. Hell you could use tech lab switching with just a Barracks and a Factory.
Yeah getting to tech doesn't mean anything in itself. But the fact is that techs open up a lot more options for the players and I think the point is that Terran can get to a lot more options faster.
|
On September 03 2010 10:10 RoarMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 09:06 ikester wrote:On September 03 2010 08:31 Bobbeth wrote:
About the Tech Lab thing: I think that one point people are missing is exactly how fast Terrans can tech compared to the other races. The Factory (tier 2) only requires a Barrack, while say a Hydra Den requires a Spawning Pool and then a Lair. You also can't really compare Terrans to Toss as a Factory doesn't require a Tech Lab, while a Robo Facility (or Stargate) requires a Cyber Core. To top it off, you can build a Tech Lab while building a Factory, and just switch the production buildings once the Factory is completed.
So basically, the time to tech to tier 2 for Terrans is about 120 seconds (Barracks -> Factory / Tech Lab), and the time it takes Toss to tech to tier 2 air is 175 seconds (Gateway -> Cyber Core -> Stargate). Hydras for Zerg take slightly longer than Toss at 185 seconds (Spawning Pool -> Lair -> Hydra Den). The times are all assuming the player goes straight for these tech without interference of sort. You can see that the time it takes for Terrans to reach tier 2 is ridiculously faster than the other 2 races, with the only drawback being the Starport requires a Factory (although getting a Starport only adds an additional 50 seconds to the 120 seconds, totalling up to 170 seconds which is still faster)
The times are sort of misleading though. The Terran build time to get to their Starport might be 5 seconds faster than it takes to get to a Starport but it's at a pretty considerable cost to their other production. I don't think the times that the race gets to tier 2 can be indicative of any sort of threat, at least not as it applies to Terran. Terran is all about getting more production buildings which takes it longer than any other race comparatively. How long does it take to build two barracks relative to one hatchery (not counting late game where you could make several at a time)? The question is inconsequential, it's just race differences. And a tech lab being readily available doesn't really blaze any trails in and of itself unless you have a lot of production buildings ready to take them. Uhm if you have a Factory, Barracks, and Starport which is 3 building, which is a total of 450 minerals and 200 gas I believe, and about 2 and a half minutes, you can make use of a Tech Lab switching. Is that a lot? No. Hell you could use tech lab switching with just a Barracks and a Factory. Yeah getting to tech doesn't mean anything in itself. But the fact is that techs open up a lot more options for the players and I think the point is that Terran can get to a lot more options faster. Exactly. Better than i could of said it~
|
On September 03 2010 09:05 throttled wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 05:22 CookieFactory wrote:On September 03 2010 04:20 RoarMan wrote:On September 03 2010 01:57 blubbdavid wrote: As much I want SC2 to improve, I don't wanna see BW die And dont mind my comment, i am Drunk atm and gonna leave korea in four days ;-( Fight on brotha man. On September 03 2010 04:11 CookieFactory wrote:On September 03 2010 02:53 throttled wrote:On September 02 2010 02:56 Nightfall.589 wrote: Given the number of changes people want to make to the game, you'd figure that Zerg only win 30% of their games, rather then the 49.5% they do on ladder.
Hydras moving at stalker speeds off-creep would be insanely overpowered. And I can't imagine you referring to anything else when you want to buff off-creep unit movement speeds.
Creep giving movement speed is a good mechanic. It gives the race a much-needed defensive advantage.
If anything, the game needs more defensive advantages, which would encourage macro-oriented gameplay, instead of one-base all-ins. Hydra: Damage: 12(+1) AtkSpd: 0.83 Range: 5 (6 w/ Upgrade) HP: 80 Speed: 2.25 Cost: 100/50/2 Tier 2 No Special Abilities Stalker: Damage: 10 + 4 vs Armored (+1/+0) AtkSpd: 1.44 Range: 6 HP: 160 Speed: 2.95 Cost: 125/50/2 Tier 1.5 Can Blink w/ Upgrade The numbers speak for themselves. When you said "Insanely overpowered" if the speed was equal, you obviously meant to say "balanced" right? Too bad a Hydra already beats a Stalker 1 on 1 due to having twice the DPS. CookieFactory too bad you're misinformed, a Hydra and Stalker with no upgrades actually kill each other. Uh no. Maybe if the stalker got the first shot off. And they always do with no upgrades because they have longer range. Not to mention thats with no micro involved. And either way it's besides the point. in almost any situation a stalker do more damage per unit than a hydra because hydras have no armor and 80 hp and cannot retreat unless on creep, nor can the chase units unless on creep. Stalkers are tier 1.5, Hydras are Tier 2. The comparison of damage done per unit should not be that close let alone in the stalkers favor.
Pure Hydra > Gateway units. That's a pretty established relationship. Unless you spam Chargelots and stay ahead in upgrades, that doesn't change.
|
On September 02 2010 23:34 junemermaid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 23:05 Thrombozyt wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the Techlab gets bashed for enabling fast unit switches, when terran of all races has the hardest time to reconfigure its unit composition? Especially when it comes from Zergs?
Due to the Barracks/Factory/Starport split, Terrans will have to invest into many new structures and leave old structures unused when switching from bio to air or from mech to bio. Yes, they can recycle the techlab - awesome! Still you are stuck with stuff you don't need and the time you need to transition is really high. Compare that to Zerg, that can actually invest in all unit structures and can reconfigure their army in each production cycle. But the techlab is still teh evil, because it unlocks TWO different units. The problem with the versatility of the tech lab is during earlier parts of the game. Generally, Terran can have every unit (with exception to the thor + bc) unlocked within 5 minutes in the game, and none of the other races can know what the Terran is going without committing resources purely for scouting (observers or overseers). After figuring out what the Terran is doing, they can then start getting an appropriate counter build going. However, for other races, it often takes time to get the proper counter during which the Terran can do an attack that can end the game outright. Terran doesn't need to scout what the other player is doing. It doesn't matter for them, really, since their 1/1/1 opening can adjust to anything the other races can throw at them within the early game. So it isn't as broken as I've outlined above, but thats the general core problem of the versatility of the tech labs. It doesn't force the Terran to commit to anything early game while the other races must. Because of the lack of commitment, Terran has a multitude of timing attacks that are all approximately at the same time that are all relatively strong. The other races do not have similar timing attacks because Terran can get a response together rather quickly. In later stages of the game, yes, Terran is punished severely if the opponent pulls out a tech switch, since as the scale of the game increases, so does the cost for Terran to switch tech trees. The reactor kind of makes up for this delayed response Terran can suffer, but the Terran has to actively scout in the late game for tech surprises. In the early game, however, Terran does not have to worry about anything other races can throw at them. EDIT: Does this make Terran easier to play? Somewhat. Does it make Terran OP? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. High level players realized how strong the 1/1/1 openings are and how easy they are to disguise & prevent scouting. This can make TvX very frustrating for the X player. Playing in the dark is really not fun.
It seems that most non-terran forget, that often you are committing your techlab to a production building, because you need to research the upgrade for that tier. In every comparison of units tanks always have siege and marauder seem to walk out of the barracks with concussive shells and perma-stimmed. (See: The hydra is so bad because the hydra is so slow off creep. But the hydra is as fast a marine or a marauder, but noone notices, because stim is always factored in). In order to really make use of a unit, you NEED to research the corresponding upgrades. I would recon, making the researching animation on tech labs easier to spot would help. Because if you see that the techlab on the starport is active, you know that banshee cloak is being researched and if you see the techlab on the barracks running, you know that the terran will invest in infantry.
The only advantage of the Terran system is that it forces the opponent to cover the critical bases earlier - which are detection and anti-air. But even though you know that cloaked banshees are a possibility, you can be reasonably sure that there will be a maximum of two banshees will come out in a reasonable time. So against protoss you force an observer (that they would be getting anyhow most of the time) and against zerg you force an overseer and an extra queen. Because by the time the terran could mass up banshees to become a serious threat, you will have adequate anti air. I know that terran can vary their additions to the core army quickly, but changing said core will take ages compared to other races. My personal guess is, that terran support is so good, because it is extremely hard so modify your core composition.
So if you insist on nerfing the ability to unlock many options quickly, you should also consider improving terrans options so modify their core composition more quickly - for example by having a researchable tech in the armory that allows high tier producing buildings to pump out lower tier units with a 20-50% build time penalty, so my reactored starport can pump out mass marines if I need to.
|
You know what, i'm so happy when playing Single player because there's no stim for Marauder, make the run even more interesting. I can't imagine if they had, then how stupid the SP would become.
|
Good thread... some valid points. Just one thing I felt needed comment. Speed.
I think that hydras feel slow off creep b/c their creep multiplier is higher than other units and b/c of their turning rate problems. Roaches are mostly cumbersome b/c of their range 3 and fat unit status. And personally I don't think Zerg have speed issues... the creep bonus is great. Why aren't more people bringing Overlords during their attacks? I used to see Idra do it a lot, but people seem to be doing it less now. Maybe the general shift away from Hydras is the reason... you don't really need it for other units. ???
According to Liquipedia Creep multiplier on Hydra is 1.5, while only 1.3 for banelings, roaches, infestors, ultra, and zerglings.
Speeds according to Liquipedia. I have repeated units in categories where they sort of have dual roles (like sentry is a caster and a fighter). Hopefully haven't missed anything.
zergling 2.9531 to 4.6991 baneling 2.5 to 2.9531 hydra 2.25 roach 2.25 to 3.0 zeal 2.25 to 2.75 stalker 2.9531 sentry 2.25 dark templar 2.8125
roach 2.25 to 3.0 ultra 2.9531 colossu 2.25 immortal 2.25 archon 2.8125
infestor 2.5 (2.0 burrowed) High Templar 1.875 sentry 2.25
muta 3.75 voidray 2.25 phoenix 4.25
overseer 1.875 (changeling helps to speed scouting and keep overseer alive) observer 1.875 to 2.8125 (not sure i've ever seen speed upgrade used competitively yet)
Something else to consider:
warp-in vs nydas warp prism/warp-in vs OL drop
|
On September 02 2010 23:30 EnderCN wrote: As for Terran, I'm still 99% convinced the major part of the problem is stim. A single upgrade giving 50% movement bonus and 50% damage bonus is just broken. It might have worked in BW but it is game breaking in SC2. Before they do anything else to try to balance the bio ball they need to lower stim first and see how it feels. If you forget to research stim before the first big battle it turns a decisive win into a decisive loss, the effect is just way too large.
I'm just a lowly silver league scrub who plays terran, but I absolutely agree with this. Marauders (and marines) without stim are a pale shadow of their equivalents with it. As it is, I think stim simply changes the power of these 2 units far too much, with a very low cost - a ball of 20 marines and 20 marauders, with 5 medivacs for support will be fully healed by the time stim runs out. In fact, the 20 marines are all fully healed within 5 seconds, and the marauders lose so little health to start with that it's almost a non-issue.
My gut instinct says that stim should be changed to something like a 20% health drop for a 20% speed increase. It wouldn't be game changing to miss it out, and it wouldn't be overpowered to use it, since you'd lose more health than currently, and gain less dps. I think It would become a genuine decision to be made depending on the situation, rather than the absolute no-brainer to research and use it all the time that is currently the case.
Second, I think that the marauder gas cost should be increase to 50. The dps and health of the marauder are extremely high for the cost, and make it very easy to get a big army very early in the game. Especially with the build time increase on zealots, I think increasing the cost of marauders would even things out a bit. As it is, I suspect M&M rushes against protoss to be even more effective than they are now. It just doesn't seem right for a tier 1.5 unit to be that powerful, that early, with that low a cost.
I also wouldn't object to the suggestion that marauders start with lower health and are just included in the combat shield upgrade. It would make no difference to the mid-late game, but would definitely make the early push a bit more of a gamble (and hence, again, a genuine decision that had to be made).
With regard to the tech lab, and as others have said, terran need to add it to every building that we want to use to build the units it unlocks, whereas zerg and protoss only have to build the building once, and they can produce the relevant units from every warpgate or robo facility they have. It's a difference in styles, and I think a few simple power/cost adjustments for the units themselves are a more elegant solution than simply forcing terrans to build more buildings to make them more similar to the other races.
But if it really would aid balance by making terrans build an extra building, then I see no reason to add a brand new one when there are already a couple of obvious alternatives to the tech lab. If, say, all unit-specific upgrades were removed from the tech lab, and required building the ghost academy (rename it simply to academy?) or engineering bay as well, would that be sufficient to assuage people's complaints of easy terran teching? The tech lab would cost the same, but would be built for the sole purpose of accessing the units themselves. The extra building would mean that fewer units could be produced (Engineering bay is 125m, academy is 150m/50g). That has a relatively large effect on early rushes, where you may only have a dozen units, but would even out completely by the time the mid-game came around.
Anyway, I'll readily bow to those of you with more experience and expertise on the other issues. I never played BW multiplayer (don't think I even finished the single-player campaign actually) so am entirely unqualified to talk about map issues, creep mechanics and all that. But stim and marauder gas feel a bit off, even to me.
|
@The Touch
About Stim. It is special because it's a carry over from BW, but it's actually more powerful now in SC2 partly because of marauders and partly because the super powerful "broken" mirror images the other races had are gone or nerfed such as defilers, lurkers/ultras/adrenalings under dark swarm, reavers, disruptio web, stasis, and high damage psi storm (that really kills even with low high templar count).
Stim and siege tanks are two things that actually got better from BW. Tanks are receiving a nerf, but I think it's going to be harder to nerf stim in a big way without breaking Terran. We'll see where things go.
Personally, I think after siegetanks the real problem is the extreme efficiency of hellions and banshees and/or the ability to detect if they are going to be used early and midgame due to difficult scouting options and the switchability of techlabs. They take more money to defend against than they cost. They are easy to turtle and tech to without risk in many cases and they don't really cause Terran to lose momentum if they are ineffective. They also compliment the normal army very very well in most cases.
Other people have noted, in PvT, you scout their ramp and see a bunker. It could be mass marines FE, bio push, cloak banshee rush, turtle to tanks, hellion drop, viking/marine vs voidray, 1/1/1 build with raven. It doesn't get much better when you scout a wall with a brx and a tech lab... except early on it means you really better think about reapers and marauders coming... even though it could completely change to something else.
If scouting is your main goal, 2 gate robo, chrono'd observer might be the best bet. However, I think this is very susceptible to an early bio all-in which is basically unscoutable. It's also a possible death sentence if the T goes for a 1/1/1 with heavy marine banshee (no cloak) push and variations off that.
Fast Hallucination probably hasn't seen the light of day since midway through the beta. It's just very expensive that early on gas-wise for a tight game. With cloaked banshee threats, I think P would rather just go observer for about the same gas cost.
So is 2 gate or 1 gate Voidray (air scouts) a safe build? Not if they go 1/1/1 and guess or scout voidrays (much easier with scan) or if they go all bio heavy marine.
The Phoenix (air scouts) build is too risky vs T, IMO. If I see it win upcoming tournies, etc. maybe I'll change my mind.
Not saying you won't win a lot of games going 2 gate VR or 2 gate fast observer, but it is risky. Terran have all the options and all the counters and very good scouting to put it to use.
I play primarily T and P, and I definitely think T has the upperhand. At the same time, I love the harass options when I play T... so I'd had to see that nerfed into uselessness.
My recommendation, wait for patch 1.1 and see how things go. Perhaps give Protoss a quicker build time on robo and observer or lower gas cost of observer back to 75 gas. Zerg complain about scouting a T, but they have it way better than Protoss. Overlords can often tell you plenty, and you can get an overseer or speed Overlords as fast as a P can get an observer.
|
On September 03 2010 08:31 Bobbeth wrote:
Uhm if you have a Factory, Barracks, and Starport which is 3 building, which is a total of 450 minerals and 200 gas I believe, and about 2 and a half minutes, you can make use of a Tech Lab switching.
Is that a lot? No. Hell you could use tech lab switching with just a Barracks and a Factory.
Yeah getting to tech doesn't mean anything in itself. But the fact is that techs open up a lot more options for the players and I think the point is that Terran can get to a lot more options faster.
Who opens like that against any decent Protoss? If I had total vision of the Protoss while I was building and the ability to see into the future that might work but otherwise opening with that plan in mind is pretty unsafe unless you were rushing banshee, which also isn't a good idea against a decent protoss. Besides, tech lab does me no good in the example I was giving, which is against a void ray.
|
On September 04 2010 03:11 Blacklizard wrote: @The Touch
About Stim. It is special because it's a carry over from BW, but it's actually more powerful now in SC2 partly because of marauders and partly because the super powerful "broken" mirror images the other races had are gone or nerfed such as defilers, lurkers/ultras/adrenalings under dark swarm, reavers, disruptio web, stasis, and high damage psi storm (that really kills even with low high templar count).
Stim and siege tanks are two things that actually got better from BW. Tanks are receiving a nerf, but I think it's going to be harder to nerf stim in a big way without breaking Terran. We'll see where things go.
Personally, I think after siegetanks the real problem is the extreme efficiency of hellions and banshees and/or the ability to detect if they are going to be used early and midgame due to difficult scouting options and the switchability of techlabs. They take more money to defend against than they cost. They are easy to turtle and tech to without risk in many cases and they don't really cause Terran to lose momentum if they are ineffective. They also compliment the normal army very very well in most cases.
Other people have noted, in PvT, you scout their ramp and see a bunker. It could be mass marines FE, bio push, cloak banshee rush, turtle to tanks, hellion drop, viking/marine vs voidray, 1/1/1 build with raven. It doesn't get much better when you scout a wall with a brx and a tech lab... except early on it means you really better think about reapers and marauders coming... even though it could completely change to something else.
If scouting is your main goal, 2 gate robo, chrono'd observer might be the best bet. However, I think this is very susceptible to an early bio all-in which is basically unscoutable. It's also a possible death sentence if the T goes for a 1/1/1 with heavy marine banshee (no cloak) push and variations off that.
Fast Hallucination probably hasn't seen the light of day since midway through the beta. It's just very expensive that early on gas-wise for a tight game. With cloaked banshee threats, I think P would rather just go observer for about the same gas cost.
So is 2 gate or 1 gate Voidray (air scouts) a safe build? Not if they go 1/1/1 and guess or scout voidrays (much easier with scan) or if they go all bio heavy marine.
The Phoenix (air scouts) build is too risky vs T, IMO. If I see it win upcoming tournies, etc. maybe I'll change my mind.
Not saying you won't win a lot of games going 2 gate VR or 2 gate fast observer, but it is risky. Terran have all the options and all the counters and very good scouting to put it to use.
I play primarily T and P, and I definitely think T has the upperhand. At the same time, I love the harass options when I play T... so I'd had to see that nerfed into uselessness.
My recommendation, wait for patch 1.1 and see how things go. Perhaps give Protoss a quicker build time on robo and observer or lower gas cost of observer back to 75 gas. Zerg complain about scouting a T, but they have it way better than Protoss. Overlords can often tell you plenty, and you can get an overseer or speed Overlords as fast as a P can get an observer.
I agree with this post a lot, we'll just have to see after 1.1.
Honestly TvZ isn't too much of a problem for me, the biggest problem is Reapers really ( Altough I'm not convinced anymore that that'll be thoroughly addressed in 1.1), although it'd be nice to use somethings other then Ling/Bling/Muta all the time.
TvP is a problem imo, I mean M&M just destroys EVERYTHING! The Protoss player basically NEEDS High Templars to compete, it's petty appalling. And Medvicas in TvP are too strong imo, drops and heals.
|
After playing more the last week and watching this Artosis vs Drewbie series I honestly have to say there are a ton of balance changes alongside these core problems that need to be fixed.
I honestly think Blizzard has screwed up this game in so many different ways and completely dodged all the problems that were in Beta. Coincidently all the problems are the new implementations they added in SC2 and too add on that they eliminated all the important units in SC BW. When I could write a 10 page essay on balance changes that need to be made to make the game even be somewhere close to what BW was is pathetic.
All of this plus this piece of trash that is BNET 2.0 and that this game has been in the making for such a large amount of time astounds me to no end. I guess thats what hype and marketing can do for a game...
|
OP quotes
I also main Terran and off race Zerg
bullshit
Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive.
No one said Zerg has to be agressive since the start, its a macro race, when the creep is spread out thats is when they should start thinking about doing big attacks.
The rest of the post is just standard weak Zerg whine not worth adressing to as its been vastly discussed in other threads.
|
On September 05 2010 08:41 Alexstrasas wrote:OP quotes bullshit Show nested quote +Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. No one said Zerg has to be agressive since the start, its a macro race, when the creep is spread out thats is when they should start thinking about doing big attacks. The rest of the post is just standard weak Zerg whine not worth adressing to as its been vastly discussed in other threads.
creep is chore to spread, but can be pushed back by the opponent in seconds... you can't base an offensive gameplan on that.
creep has almost exclusively defensive usage.
|
I particularly like the part about the versatility of the tech lab. I too believe that this is the main reason why Terran has an advantage over the other races. It makes almost every unit so easily accessible at any time during the game. The other two races have to throw down tons of tech to unlock certain units.
However, the game is already released and it might be too late for Blizzard to make such a drastic change, so they might just nerf individual units instead.
|
I agree with pretty much every point, especially the one on battle dynamics. I think ZvP gives the best example of how drab SC2's gameplay is - in the midgame Zerg just basically masses a big HydaRoach army and fights for the center, no fun spell casters, no nail-biting defensive play while trying to tech or anything interesting really. I mean they're varationss in how Zerg plays, but it all leads to this 'mass a big army army and control the middle' theme
|
On September 05 2010 08:52 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 08:41 Alexstrasas wrote:OP quotes I also main Terran and off race Zerg bullshit Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. No one said Zerg has to be agressive since the start, its a macro race, when the creep is spread out thats is when they should start thinking about doing big attacks. The rest of the post is just standard weak Zerg whine not worth adressing to as its been vastly discussed in other threads. creep is chore to spread, but can be pushed back by the opponent in seconds... you can't base an offensive gameplan on that. creep has almost exclusively defensive usage.
Really? Last time i checked if you control half of the map and that half is covered in creep your units will reach the middle of the map faster than your oponent units reinforcing pushes insanly fast
|
It annoys me so much that u need soo much effort to creep all the time ....
And then the enemy just kills it with a scan or an obs in seconds .... i always cry when i see that xD
|
On September 05 2010 09:34 Alexstrasas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 08:52 kickinhead wrote:On September 05 2010 08:41 Alexstrasas wrote:OP quotes I also main Terran and off race Zerg bullshit Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. No one said Zerg has to be agressive since the start, its a macro race, when the creep is spread out thats is when they should start thinking about doing big attacks. The rest of the post is just standard weak Zerg whine not worth adressing to as its been vastly discussed in other threads. creep is chore to spread, but can be pushed back by the opponent in seconds... you can't base an offensive gameplan on that. creep has almost exclusively defensive usage. Really? Last time i checked if you control half of the map and that half is covered in creep your units will reach the middle of the map faster than your oponent units reinforcing pushes insanly fast
Your post didn't really disprove what he said. If you on creep you are good on creep. That isn't the problem. The problem is that you are inversely effected by creep. As in you are bad off it and need it to be good. Instead of being good off it
|
On September 05 2010 08:41 Alexstrasas wrote:OP quotes bullshit Show nested quote +Creep Mechanic The number one flaw of the game as it butchers Zerg completely. It permits the supposed "aggressive" race to be completely defensive. No one said Zerg has to be agressive since the start, its a macro race, when the creep is spread out thats is when they should start thinking about doing big attacks. The rest of the post is just standard weak Zerg whine not worth adressing to as its been vastly discussed in other threads. Lol i main terran bro, i know its hard to believe but i understand the race i play is completely stupid.
What the fuck is a macro race? All these new SC 2 kids dont know what they're talking about. Theres no such thing as a "macro" race. Macro is the producing of units and the maintaining of your base and economy.
The whole problem was pretty much showed by your completely stupid post. Zerg cannot be aggressive unless they have a definite unit lead over the opponent with any unit that isn't a zergling and is forced to play completely defensively.
Also again that is the most stupid statement ive ever seen I mean a macro race? Jesus christ......... I guess every single pro BW game the race they were playing was a macro race, these forums are getting dumber and dumber every day.
Also of course its "whine" not constructive criticism. Oh everything that even says that Terran has problems is complete nonsense from a terribad player. I guess every single tourny result, all the ladder rankings, and all the pro's saying that Terran is broken is for nothing.......
Also yes zerg is supposed to be the aggressive race. Theres a reason its called the swarm and that Terran ever since the release of vanilla Sc has been called a defensive race.
|
This is by far the best thread made of balance.
It hits the EXACT problems of this game, None of this 'IMBA TERRAN OMFG THORS OWN ME".
The Creep Mechanic explanation is absolutely on the target. Creep is not a bonus, but a necessity. It handicaps Zerg units.
Zerg ground force, aside from the Speedling(which is so weak its sad), Is not at all the most mobile force in the game.
With Stim, and Medics that are also Dropships, Terran BIO is by far the most mobile ground fource in the game.
|
|
Another thing that should be added is that if you accidentally click the hotkey icon on top of the unit info box, it adds that unit to the group. I wish there was a way to disable this so my production hotkeys dont end up with scvs in them throwing off my macro.
|
On September 10 2010 05:06 theshin2007 wrote: Another thing that should be added is that if you accidentally click the hotkey icon on top of the unit info box, it adds that unit to the group. I wish there was a way to disable this so my production hotkeys dont end up with scvs in them throwing off my macro. god i hate that. spam right click and accidentally overwrite your hotkey and get all confused. i also used to do this with the side notifications but thankfully you can turn those off.
|
tl:dr, has anyone suggested a negative speed coefficient on other units on creep rather than a speed boost to zerg units. Wouldn't that solve most creep related problems?
|
On September 04 2010 06:10 ikester wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 08:31 Bobbeth wrote:
Uhm if you have a Factory, Barracks, and Starport which is 3 building, which is a total of 450 minerals and 200 gas I believe, and about 2 and a half minutes, you can make use of a Tech Lab switching.
Is that a lot? No. Hell you could use tech lab switching with just a Barracks and a Factory.
Yeah getting to tech doesn't mean anything in itself. But the fact is that techs open up a lot more options for the players and I think the point is that Terran can get to a lot more options faster.
Who opens like that against any decent Protoss? If I had total vision of the Protoss while I was building and the ability to see into the future that might work but otherwise opening with that plan in mind is pretty unsafe unless you were rushing banshee, which also isn't a good idea against a decent protoss. Besides, tech lab does me no good in the example I was giving, which is against a void ray.
wait what? Did you just ask "who the opens 1/1/1 against Protoss?" The 1/1/1 build is extremely powerful against all Protoss openings. It lets you expand fast, punish teching with either banshees or ravens, defends against fast void ray, allows for ridiculous harass options through blue flame hellion drops, or lets you macro MMM. It's one of the best openings in the game. Seriously, you need to either watch more games or play more because the 1/1/1 is a staple in TvP.
|
On September 10 2010 05:32 kiykiy wrote: tl:dr, has anyone suggested a negative speed coefficient on other units on creep rather than a speed boost to zerg units. Wouldn't that solve most creep related problems?
I think someone started a poll on the bnet forums about this before beta was released, basically the options were creep speeding up zerg units, slowing down non zerg units or healing zerg units on creep while not moving. I would've taken either of the two options over the current.
Not that it matters now but I think a more interesting creep mechanic would be to have creep be nuetral early game and just required for building, then once you reach lair you get to pick one out of 3 upgrades that permanently alter the creep for the rest of the game.
|
On September 02 2010 01:02 OHtRUe wrote: The Power of the Marauder Honestly I think the marauders are an awesome unit and amazing to play with (terran main) but i can admit that they are overpowered in the early game and in certain aspects. First off marauders give free map control for the whole early game and forces protoss to go tier 2 instantly which eliminates FE play for Toss while letting Terran doing anything they want. The second problem is there upgrades which makes marauders into super heroes. Concussive shells disallows any micro from the opponent and punishes skirmishes and harassment. Stim and marauders is just ridiculous in how fast marauders can kill anything armored, how fast they become (lol synergy), and how little drawbacks are there from using it. I'm not gonna even get into marauder drops which are completely stupid (again im a terran main)
To fix the marauder you have to look at the problems with bio upgrades. I'm gonna steal an idea from Gretorp (check out balance suggestions from Xeris's thread from MLG Raleigh) which is to combine Combat shield into a marine and marauder health upgrade while nerfing marauders starting hp to 100. This is to promote distinctive bio upgrades while punishing Stim timing pushes and makes marauders easier to handle in the early game. As well as this concussive shells and combat shield are now unlocked from the academy. Buildings also shouldn't be armored btw~
Something else I want to add on about the Marauders is their DPS. They do bonus +20dmg to plus armor units with 6 range. That was like a dragoon. When I first saw Marauders being introduced when they showed Starcraft 2. I said "wow... terran have dragoons now" and I was right. Their 1.5 attack speed and +20 dmg does the same DPS as zealots do, to stalkers. Stalkers only do +14, much less than the damage that dragoons used to do. Another reason why, no... two... i mean THREE reasons why you cant micro any stalkers against a group of marauders is that the marauders hit is going to hit the stalker and the concussive shell is going to slow it down. If you add in stim there, its over for the protoss army. The only way to stop this in the current game, is getting well placed force fields with sentries.
|
I disagree with the creep, they should still get the speed bonus.. but an ACTUAL speed bonus. In it's current state the speed bonus on creep actually only let's them _KEEP UP_ with the fast units of the other races. It should give an actual _advantage_.
|
the maps are the thing that bugs me most. they are so tiny and narrow which is good for one basing and not playing the macro game at all. but honestly i dont know how the big maps work with the new mechanics you got.
|
Specifically with regards to the Marauder:
Zealots + Sentries beat pure Marauder, pure Marine or Marine + Marauder and even with Stim. Terran units aren't particularly tough so their numbers dwindle rapidly when unable to kite and faced with a wall of Zealots slicing and dicing. Protoss don't have to go Tier 2 in order to beat them, but we do have to go Tier 2 in order to figure out what you're doing because of that wall. Neither side can really risk rampaging up each other's ramp without losing a bunch of stuff and putting themselves at jeopardy (Crap Station not withstanding).
It can be said that the wide-open spaces in front of naturals give Terrans an advantage in expansion, because you can't really circumvent a couple of Bunkers in front of an expansion, but you can really capitalize on the Sentry+Zealot combo's difficulty in preventing them from kiting with so much open space.
HOWEVER, its my belief that its EMP, followed by Psi Storm that truly breaks the whole bio vs Gateway battle. Stims + EMP is both too much upfront damage capability AND breaking the back of Protoss' ability to stop the bio ball kiting, unlocked too quickly for Terran and leads to tons and tons of quick, easy wins when Protoss is absolutely forced to gain some macro or harassment advantage in order to combat it. If Protoss can hold off long enough to get Psi Storm + Khaydarin Amulet, the pendulum completely swings the other way. EMPs get thrown out, the Protoss retreats to a nearby Pylon, summons more HTs and obliterates the bio-ball with the fastest-acting, most cost-effective damage spell ever seen in an RTS.
The combined gas cost of the Terran bio ball is absurdly low allowing Ghosts to be fielded without any kind of significant investment. 100 gas for Stim? 50 for the Ghost Academy? 150 for the Ghost? That's a pittance compared to what the Protoss spends in gas just to combat pure Marine+Marauder, let alone MMG.
It's no surprise to me you always see bio-balls running around with 1/1, 2/2 or even 3/3, fighting Gateway armies sitting on 0/0/0 for 20 minutes. They've got so much surplus gas they don't know what to do with it, and don't even have to bother getting double-Refineries on their first expansion for a long-ass time.
So you get tons of these games where Terran just shows up with Stim + EMP and wipes the the floor with the guy. And an equal number of games where he plays more passively, gives the Protoss ample opportunity to get Psi Storm and then gets his ass kicked.
If that turns out to be a 50:50 win rate for each side, is that balance?
Of course this isn't counting games where Terrans try things like Banshee rushes, slow Mech-based pushes and so-on, but when the Terran opens with Ghosts I've yet to see a single game that didn't end on the flip of the 'how aggressive is the Terran?' coin.
|
regarding creep: i think blizzard intended to have the creep be a "speed boost". not the "normal speed" - where being off it you would be going slower than you should... sadly the latter is how its perceived
i like it.. i think it adds an interesting dynamic IF used effectively.. especially at high levels..
|
So I came up with this idea, TL needs to bash it!
Creep is messed up right? with ur opponent just being able to detect it and bam there goes everything. What if the creep were invulnerable to detectors except for around mineral nodes?
As in every base has a circle the size of the scanner tower to where ur opponent can detect the creep tumors.
Sounds like a good idea to me. What u guys think?
|
Agree with the OP. However I think a problem is also the unit versatility and difficulty of countering it without wildly deviating.
For example, if the Terran makes a bunch of marauders and you don't have the right unit mix to fight them, you'll die. But the marauders can escape or do ok even if you DO have the right mix.
If he gets banshess (vs toss) the toss really needs an observer and a stargate to properly fight them (stalkers aren't super against banshees actually). Which is two tech paths that you might not otherwise get. Because even if they aren't cloaked, they are still very good.
I mean if a toss goes DTs and the enemy has good detection, it is a bust, since DTs die so fast. But banshees and enemy has detection? No worries, they are still awesome.
Terrans access all their units far too easily, can switch production too easily, and have excellent counters. On the other hand their opponent has to go out of his way to counter one thing, and the counter unit (phoenix, colosssus) is suddenly largely useless do to instant terran tech switch.
|
So from what I understood about your "Creep" section, while its meant to make Zerg more mobile it actually hinders mobility? Are you getting this from the fact that it takes so long to spread asking "Why would units ever want to be OFF the creep?" leading to a more "turtled" Zerg player?
I'm trying to understand what you were going for...
|
On September 02 2010 10:17 Cloak wrote:I feel that forcefields can be micro'd out of and that's just whining. I agree. Examples are: terrans can use dropships to pick up units and put them on either side and zerg can burrow around them.
|
The ease of killing creep tumors is sad...have the best mechanics in the world, 5 seconds and 1 scan later all your work is for nothing.
|
On September 02 2010 02:45 Zoroth wrote: Uhm, I think the OP needs to revisit a number of these things and try actually seeing things in action, because the way you present these things makes it look like you haven't done any of that at all. Your theories are full of holes and you're trying to find issues that don't exist.
Have you discussed these things with pro players and tried to figure out why Blizzard have these things implemented? Cause most of this has already been addressed.
Just a little hint - things aren't necessarily always as they immediately seem. There might be a little deeper thought behind Blizzard's decisions than what you seem to assume.
The Art of War is a great book to read, I recommend it to anyone regardless. It's even a suitable book for skimming, so you don't need to read it word-by-word. you keep talking about "things" but i have no clue what you're talking about, most of the things the OP is talking about is very true and is an issue
|
On September 11 2010 17:26 Solid2TheSnake wrote: So from what I understood about your "Creep" section, while its meant to make Zerg more mobile it actually hinders mobility? Are you getting this from the fact that it takes so long to spread asking "Why would units ever want to be OFF the creep?" leading to a more "turtled" Zerg player?
I'm trying to understand what you were going for...
It's more the fact that Zerg-Units are too slow off-creep that makes Zerg a more defensive race. Blizzard counted on the fact that the offensiv usage of creep would make Zerg a very fast race, but it's just too easy to deny creep-spread as T or P and Zerg-Units like Queen, Roach, Hydra, Ultra etc. are just too slow off-creep.
It takes just 1 scan or an observer to easily push the Zergs creep back, but it takes high APM and good Multitasking to actually spread it over the Map.
|
On September 02 2010 02:22 0neder wrote: I agree. I would rank them:
#1 Maps (need to be more open space in middle, larger) #2 Seige Tank Overkill (this is what made BW positioning and unit control so dynamic) #3 High Ground Mechanic #4 Marauder Strength/tech (I think Terran need another tech building or two in general, it's too easy for them to tech) This, I really think the maps are simply terrible, scrap station is the only zerg map at the moment while still being too small. I've played a few games on the iccup maps, it sure feels like a totally different game at the start.
|
Sorry, but I think the OP is not right in the case according to the tech lab. Yes, it's 50:25 for 1 tech lab on 1 barracks. but let's see how this adds up?
Let's say, T want to go 3rax into 6rax with expo. offers you the following units:
> Marines > Marauders > Reapers
Total investment = 6*150 + 6*50/25 = 1200m150g
Now Protoss: 6 gate Cybernetics
> Zealots > Stalker > Sentry
Total investment: 6*150 + 150 = 1050 (with Warpgate 1100/50g)
Lets check on Zerg: 3 Basic Units
> Zergling > Roach > Hydra
Lets add 1 extra Hatchery into the price pool and 2 Queens Total Investment: 300 + 2*150(Queens) + 200 (pool)+ 150 (roach warren) + 150/100 (Lair) + 100/100 (hydra den) = 1200m300g
Conclusion: All 3 races have similar costs to reach 3 basic units. Of course if you count only 1 rax with 1 tech lab it seems supposedly the cheapest on paper but the game doesn't end with 1 rax + lab. the 6 production building scenario is what is the most average I think if you go pure basic units.
The protoss are the most efficient. The Terran can lift off their buildings and move them around and the Zerg get an extra hatchery most likely at their expansion and have extra income.
The current state according to that fact seems appropriate and pretty well balanced in my eyes. Terran does NOT need an extra tech building because it would throw them off the balance. And when some people say "Its too easy for them to tech" then I have to disagree. The Cybernetics core only has 50s build time and it counts for EVERY warpgate. A Techlab has 25s delay and has to be done at EVERY barracks. 6*25 = 150s without unit production out of that particular barracks in my example up there which is close to 260s for the Z to build his 3 buildings to open up 3 basic units including the additional hatchery. But he can still produce the units he has the building already for so it is about even.
cheers
|
On September 11 2010 18:46 c0rn1 wrote: Sorry, but I think the OP is not right in the case according to the tech lab. Yes, it's 50:25 for 1 tech lab on 1 barracks. but let's see how this adds up?
Let's say, T want to go 3rax into 6rax with expo. offers you the following units:
> Marines > Marauders > Reapers
Total investment = 6*150 + 6*50/25 = 1200m150g
Now Protoss: 6 gate Cybernetics
> Zealots > Stalker > Sentry
Total investment: 6*150 + 150 = 1050 (with Warpgate 1100/50g)
Lets check on Zerg: 3 Basic Units
> Zergling > Roach > Hydra
Lets add 1 extra Hatchery into the price pool and 2 Queens Total Investment: 300 + 2*150(Queens) + 200 (pool)+ 150 (roach warren) + 150/100 (Lair) + 100/100 (hydra den) = 1200m300g
Conclusion: All 3 races have similar costs to reach 3 basic units. Of course if you count only 1 rax with 1 tech lab it seems supposedly the cheapest on paper but the game doesn't end with 1 rax + lab. the 6 production building scenario is what is the most average I think if you go pure basic units.
The protoss are the most efficient. The Terran can lift off their buildings and move them around and the Zerg get an extra hatchery most likely at their expansion and have extra income.
The current state according to that fact seems appropriate and pretty well balanced in my eyes. Terran does NOT need an extra tech building because it would throw them off the balance. And when some people say "Its too easy for them to tech" then I have to disagree. The Cybernetics core only has 50s build time and it counts for EVERY warpgate. A Techlab has 25s delay and has to be done at EVERY barracks. 6*25 = 150s without unit production out of that particular barracks in my example up there which is close to 260s for the Z to build his 3 buildings to open up 3 basic units including the additional hatchery. But he can still produce the units he has the building already for so it is about even.
cheers
The whole debate about the TechLab has nothing to do with how expensive it is when you have to mass certain Units, but how easy the Terran can switch Tech's and how difficult it is to scout a Terran and interpret what he's is doing.
|
Make Zerg have normal speed off creep and amazing speed(or anything else). It's true that the current system ruins Zerg. Now Zerg can be played for the macro game but Zerg is completely one-dimensional.
Tech labs aren't that much of a problem, but they probably can be switched around too quickly. Maybe make it have a 6 second reconnecting time when you land a building on a tech lab? I think it'd mostly be all right after they made it so that Marauders don't deal bonus dmg vs buildings.
|
On September 03 2010 06:43 EnderCN wrote:Show nested quote +Uhhh you kinda proved my point in your post even though you didn't notice. You can swap tech labs to circumvent tech and transition in an instant.t. No I didn't. I showed just the opposite. If a Protoss player wants to get out a colossus and he only has gateway and cybernetics core built he has to build a robo facility and a robo bay. If a Terran payer wants to get out a thor and he has barracks and tech lab built he has to build a factory and an armory and then either build a tech lab as well or swap out a pre-existing tech lab. The tech lab is an EXTRA step. If they completely removed the tech lab and just let Terran build all of their units without it they still would need the same number of buildings as a protoss for everything except the Barracks. I get what you are saying somewhat though i guess, if they removed the tech lab completely Terran might tech too fast because they wouldn't have that cyber core building they need between T1 and T2. That at least makes some sense. Tech labs as a whole are a disadvantage but the way the system works might make Terran transitions to T2 and T3 a little faster than they should be. You can't use a tech lab as an armory or fusion core, it is absolutely no different... This is not a hard concept. The tech lab is an extra layer of tech that Terran has to put on buildings to do what other races can do normally.
I have a hard time believing tech labs are a disadvantage. They are quite cheap and allow multiple techs to be researched simultaneously and pre-building tech labs for higher tier structures is very powerful.
|
The problem with tech labs isn't necessarily that they open up higher-tier units, it's that the nature of the units that they open up can require radically different counters from other races and that these same units can be used to respond to any change in an opposing army.
For example, a 3-1-1 build with 2 tech labs and 1 reactor on the barracks and a reactor on the starport can make a decent MMM army for some kind of midgame agression. This same build can, without any extra investment save maybe an upgrade or two, switch to dual-pumping Hellions, making Banshees, adding Ravens, or even making tanks. Adding one building could make it a pure Marine/Tank mix with Vikings, or dual port banshees with Hellions, Marines and a Raven for PDD.
The same sort of thing isn't true for the other races. Every tech building worth of stuff can be responded to with the right unit mix, and until late game zerg, there really isn't an example of being able to switch directly to a composition that requires you to do more to counter it.To get air that forces some AA, Protoss and Zerg construct structures that open Phoenix/VR or Muta/Corruptor. Obviously these are good units, but once an opponent has sufficient AA capabilities they really don't stack up to the Terran's ability to use their Starports to make Banshees, Ravens or Medivacs, all of which can hold their own in a regular composition. Other races' air is generally not cost-effective if you just throw it in to a big army, unless you tech to "Capital units" like broodlords or carriers.
I wouldn't say it makes the game imbalanced, but it really closes down on the options available to other races early on. It's a case of "Oh, the Terran has a starport, now I need to make sure that I have extra Observers, enough Stalkers to deal with potential harassment, a strong enough ground force to deal with their now improved ability to make an MM ball, some stuff at all my mineral lines and better map control to avoid losing to drops, and a plan to get up HTs soon to provide an actual viable counter to the air." On the other hand, a Terran player can respond to Protoss air by making a few turrets and ensuring that he doesn't neglect Marine production.
|
every 2v2 i play the load screen will have the "favoured" "slightly favoured" "even" assessment at the top, but no matter what i always end up with "you were slightly favoured" when i win/ lose.
so i lose a LOT of points when i lose and gain 5 when i win...is this happening to anyone else?
|
On September 12 2010 02:23 Exa wrote: every 2v2 i play the load screen will have the "favoured" "slightly favoured" "even" assessment at the top, but no matter what i always end up with "you were slightly favoured" when i win/ lose.
so i lose a LOT of points when i lose and gain 5 when i win...is this happening to anyone else? Your displayed points are probably ahead of how good the system has determined that you are, and as such, you'll be getting this because your displayed ranking is always above your opponents' hidden rankings. Once you lose enough points it should put your back. This kind of thing happens more in 2v2 because of the teammate factor.
|
If beta testing is any indication, Blizzard has absolutely no idea what they're doing with Zerg.
Queen rushes too strong. Nerf. Spine Crawler rushes too strong. Nerf. Roaches too strong. Nerf. Infestors too strong. Nerf. Broodlords too Strong. Nerf.
|
I agree with everything 100%
Terran just has too many powerful options that take little gas, and lack punishment for failure. They get to 20 food and they can wall, scan, mm, reaper, mule, pf expo, or tech to anything they want safely like mech play, mmm harass, banshee, raven. It's impossible to prepare for and Toss has to spend a lot of gas to get something that flies to scout. Then you see there buildings and if you scout 1/1/1, you'll just see that you can't attack into there wall and they could literally be producing any unit from there arsenal with no way to know what composition will exist 1 minute from now. Playing against MM early game is very hard for Toss, 1 mistake and terran wins. I miss reavers ;( and I would actually like to see colossus weakened but easier to get out. The first one with range takes 700 gas to get out (robo 100, support 200, range 200 colossus 200) and your opponent has a 3 minute window to scout it and knows exactaly what your doing. Storm isn't very strong and if you spend the resources on it early and don't have perfect storms, your dead.
Anyone who disagrees I have a challenge for you. Go play 1v1 blistering sands as protoss vs terran very hard ai. If you win then Play 10 games on insane and see how many you win. Hint: the terran is going to mm push either early with a bunch of marines (you'll get punished if you econ too hard) or it will do a maurader marine stim concussive timing push that is obscene. If you block the ramp they clear the destructible rocks. Once in a while the ai will just do something retarded with its units, so occasionally you'll get a free win. But just give it a try and you'll see what I mean. Even when you break the terrans pushes your not ahead at all. If you expo or tech your dead, you won't have enough units to stop it. The AI doesn't know how to kite very good. So after a few games of this you'll see what I'm saying. Imagine playing a diamond player who 4 raxes you like this, has great micro/kiting and gets to med evacs and starts doing drops.
Than Imagine the online situation of builds, where you have to get robo and obs out or you'll die to banshee rush. It almost seems like the build you need to survive mm and the build you need to stop banshee rushes are mutually exclusive. It is not always easy to be able to tell what the terrans doing so soon after they wall in. Also, if your gateway units get caught in the open by mm concussive stim your in trouble, and with how exposed most naturals are you will see this is problematic.
|
On September 12 2010 03:04 Reborn8u wrote: I agree with everything 100%
Terran just has too many powerful options that take little gas, and lack punishment for failure. They get to 20 food and they can wall, scan, mm, reaper, mule, pf expo, or tech to anything they want safely like mech play, mmm harass, banshee, raven. It's impossible to prepare for and Toss has to spend a lot of gas to get something that flies to scout. Then you see there buildings and if you scout 1/1/1, you'll just see that you can't attack into there wall and they could literally be producing any unit from there arsenal with no way to know what composition will exist 1 minute from now. Playing against MM early game is very hard for Toss, 1 mistake and terran wins. I miss reavers ;( and I would actually like to see colossus weakened but easier to get out. The first one with range takes 700 gas to get out (robo 100, support 200, range 200 colossus 200) and your opponent has a 3 minute window to scout it and knows exactaly what your doing. Storm isn't very strong and if you spend the resources on it early and don't have perfect storms, your dead.
Anyone who disagrees I have a challenge for you. Go play 1v1 blistering sands as protoss vs terran very hard ai. If you win then Play 10 games on insane and see how many you win. Hint: the terran is going to mm push either early with a bunch of marines (you'll get punished if you econ too hard) or it will do a maurader marine stim concussive timing push that is obscene. If you block the ramp they clear the destructible rocks. Once in a while the ai will just do something retarded with its units, so occasionally you'll get a free win. But just give it a try and you'll see what I mean. Even when you break the terrans pushes your not ahead at all. If you expo or tech your dead, you won't have enough units to stop it. The AI doesn't know how to kite very good. So after a few games of this you'll see what I'm saying. Imagine playing a diamond player who 4 raxes you like this, has great micro/kiting and gets to med evacs and starts doing drops.
Yea thats a problem, you can't scout tell if the terran is going orbital command or PF, and when you do, its usually too late. Basically if you commited to an attack, and the opponent went for dual-PF's ( one at natrual, one at the third) you are fucked.
|
The map thing is really big too. In BW you always got 2 bases with 1 choke. In sc 2 you often get 1 base with 2 chokes or a natural with no choke (exposed at a 180 degree radius). Also, all the mains have cliffs near the minerals and space for air to fly around your main and hit you from any angle. In BW mains always had plenty of space to defend your minerals and usually were on the edge of the map so you could actually get on 2 base and have options even when your opponent 1 base all ins you.
|
Alright I agree with almost everything the op says somethings I would tweak a little bit. Also I thought I would add in some BW references.
Your point 1 is very good but it seems like it would be horribly strong in certain situations. With a small number of queens with this new regenerative mechanic and transfuse would make attacking zerg with a slightly larger group of air units almost impossible. Correct me if I am wrong I do not know this for a fact I did not start playing BW until about 5 years in. Apparently from people who did play it way back in the day they told me during sc original that blizzard did experiment with a mechanic where zerg healed faster on creep. (This could of been the alpha the beta or shortly after the release of the game or not at all I don't know) But if this did occur it was obviously canceled for a good reason. IMHO the thing that would help the creep mechanic the best is that non zerg units would move normal speed (there creep boasted speed this could be adjusted for units like the queen) regardless of whether they were on creep or not but terran and protoss whether allies or not would receive a movement penalty for being on creep. Of course not all units would receive the same penalty just like with the current mechanic hydras' and queens' speed benefit alot more than say roaches or infestors.
My analysis of point 2 is long please read the whole thing before commenting or at least the last two paragraphs where I compare sc2 and bw I am only adding this in to compare the two Your point 2 is very good however I thought I would reference BW for a better comparison as to what we are looking at. Keep in mind I agree with you however I think a different perspective is needed. In BW to build my tier 1.5 infantry units it required an academy. So you would build a barracks and only be able to produce marines while you waited on your academy to finish so you could produce firebats and medics. Then after your factory was finished you would have to wait till your armory was done before you could produce goliaths however, you could still build vultures. You needed a machine shop (add-on) on your factory to make the vultures really useful and to be able to build tanks. After your factory was done you could start on the production of the starport when your starport was done you could produce wraiths you had to wait till your control tower (add-on)was complete before you could make dropships (or any other starport unit for that matter) while your control tower was being added on you could make a science facility which would enable the production of your mobile detection (the highest tier mobile detection in the game the reason the terrans have the comsat station in BW and OC in sc2) Once your science facility is done you could choose to build ghosts or battlecruisers. (In single player if I wanted both then I would just build one facility and move it back and forth from add-on to add-on at the beginning of each production cycle.)
Now SC2 technology. In SC2 I build a barracks I can only build marines. I need to add on a tech lab in order to begin building my other tier 1.5 units. Then my last tier 1.5 unit, the ghost, requires the ghost academy to be built and the tech lab (these can be built simultaneously). After your barracks finishes you can begin the construction of a factory. This allows you to produce only hellions. You need to add a tech lab onto the factory before you can make tanks (or thors) and then an armory to make thors. After your factory is done you can make a starport. Which enables you to begin producing medivacs and vikings. You add a tech lab onto your port then you can make ravens and banshees as well. Then you make a fusion core and can make battlecruisers.
BW compared to SC2 The barracks tech lab is basically the same thing as the academy of BW. Yes the tech lab builds faster than the academy however, if I am building an academy I can build marines at the same time. If I am building a tech lab I can't build a marine at the same time. This is not a humongous disadvantage of the tech lab but a disadvantage nonetheless. The factory is effectively identical you can produce a vulture/hellion right away then you make an add-on to make tanks then build an armory to make goliaths/thors. Yes you can add the tech lab onto the rax so you can have it ready for your factory right away. But this will make you have less marines for defense and your factory will now be at your choke making it an easier target. The starport is probably where one of the two major problems with tech lab arises. As unlike BW when your port finishes you can produce 2 units then adding on a techlab will allow you to produce 2 units as well. The fusion core buildtime compares decently well with the science facility with a physics lab add on. So going battlecrusisers is the same.
The factory with a tech lab basically only opens one unit (and upgrades) which makes it basically identical to the machine shop as well as the barracks tech lab identical to the academy. As already mentioned yes you can build your tech lab for your factory in advance but you will have less marines if you do this and honestly this doesn't save you much time. If I want to go siege tanks I will want marines to accompany my tanks and that means a reactor is a better addon to my barracks which takes light years to build so I will want to get it going asap. The starport is where the versatility of tech lab comes into play as if you are going infantry with raven banshee medivac support as you don't want to build tanks/thors as they are slow then you don't have to worry about building a tech lab reactor to your port your factory can make your "control tower"(tech lab/reactor) for you. Meaning as opposed to having to wait to complete an addon to open up technology you instantly have 4 units that you can pick from.
_______________________________ Lastly BW has existed for 10 YEARS do zerg when they see control tower from terran think O god he might have researched cloak so might want to make sure I leave an overlord in each expansion probably not because chances of that succeeding without optical flare are low. A protoss scouting an academy with his observer in BW do they think man he might start building medics and marines against me, probably not because goons obliterate terran infantry. Chances are its there so he can get ghosts later or get his comsat up. You need to remember as this game evolves certain BOs are most likely going to become dominate and that's what you will see in all tournaments.
Everything else I believe other people of posted here have given enough insight so I will not comment on them for now maybe I will as I continue reading the replies.
|
Here's an idea. Everytime someone has a brilliant idea on how to balance the game they should open the map editor and make the changes they see fit. Then post the map here and have some high level players play on that map, then see how it works.
|
On September 12 2010 06:44 STS17 wrote: Here's an idea. Everytime someone has a brilliant idea on how to balance the game they should open the map editor and make the changes they see fit. Then post the map here and have some high level players play on that map, then see how it works. Too bad battle.net 2.0 doesnt even allow that to be possible , oh boy oh boy. I don't want to "bump" this thread, but i still feel like its completely relevant and it should get more exposure. Honestly people are still not understanding that the problem doesn't come from how much damage units do or 5 second build times, but the fact that the game is broken. You can't balance a game if the design of it is terrible. Unfortunately blizzard doesn't understand this concept.......
|
|
|
|