PDA

View Full Version : Immortaliteit reworking



Sietsh-Tenk
10-25-2012, 06:16 AM
Since the immortal still shuts down most of Terran mech, how about the following tweak:

Change the immortals shields so that there is a recharge delay every time they are triggered by a high damage attack. Let's say that any attack over forty or fifty damage will trigger the immortals shields, but then there's a .3 or .5 delay recharging time.

I also propose reducing the bonus damage and increasing the base damage. Or just reducing the bonus damage while decreasing cost and/or build time.

This way it's not going to be three immortals clearing out thirty tanks (exaggerating, before some literal minded person attacks this statement) anymore, making mech that much more viable again.

Whaddya think?

TheEconomist
10-25-2012, 07:37 AM
Because otherwise Terran is even more imba.

Sietsh-Tenk
10-25-2012, 07:55 AM
From what I've seen, mech hasn't become any more viable apart from spamming widow mines. While I think widow mines fit the Terran style of defining the battlefield by using emplacements and fortifications, they still need some tweaking.

The problem with immortals right now is not just that they completely shut down tanks, it's that they're an either/or unit: either they completely own the unit they are up against, or they die without inflicting more thana fraction of their cost in damage.

With the above changes it would change them from the hardest of hard counters (and the downside of hard counters is always that they have a hard weakness) into a more all-round unit. I think this would make for a more fluid style of play.

Pr0nogo
10-25-2012, 08:15 AM
I think if Blizzard was going to take an intelligent approach to their unit design for ladder play, they wouldn't have relied on hard-counters in the first place. With that in mind, there's not much evidence to point that they're going to change it up - I think they're happy with how the game turned out, as retarded as that is.

flak4321
10-25-2012, 01:01 PM
What surprises me is Toss doesn't have an answer for well micro'd terran air, yet Terrans want a mech buff... dude that's why we have options. Immortals and collos can't hit air. I couldn't tell you how many PvPs I've had where I went air vs a deathball and forced a base race because he/she could not beat my void/blink stalker combo straight up. Terran could do the same with a viking banshee combo. Cruisers would be viable only until the Toss starts getting air.

Kknewkles
10-29-2012, 03:58 PM
I think if Blizzard was going to take an intelligent approach to their unit design for ladder play, they wouldn't have relied on hard-counters in the first place.
Well... SC2 kinda IS a game of hard counters. Or at least much more of a hard-counters game than BW.
And I think it DID turn out fine.

Pr0nogo
10-29-2012, 06:43 PM
You thought wrong.

DemolitionSquid
10-29-2012, 06:59 PM
Hard counters are definitely a problem with SC2. A lot of damage numbers need to be adjusted to be more median and less bonus.

Triceron
10-29-2012, 08:13 PM
Brood War was all about hard counters and it was fine.

SC2 has a problem with mixing up their Rock Paper Scissors, that's the problem.

Pr0nogo
10-29-2012, 08:56 PM
Brood War was all about hard counters and it was fine.

You can gg till you can make factual statements.

DemolitionSquid
10-29-2012, 09:43 PM
Brood War was all about hard counters and it was fine.

SC2 has a problem with mixing up their Rock Paper Scissors, that's the problem.

Are you high?

Just because a unit did concussive or explosive damage didn't make it a hard counter. The units that had those attack types, like Vultures and Lurkers, were incredibly variable in power thanks to micro (for and against). Very few units in Starcraft 2 have the same kind of difference made through micro. The bonus damage is on units that are very slow, like Immortals or Vikings, and the bonuses are against units that are also very slow, like Siege Tanks and Colossi. That's where hard counters in SC2 come from - lack of micro on units with bonus damage, and their targets.

TheEconomist
10-29-2012, 10:30 PM
Brood War was all about hard counters and it was fine.

Don't think you know what hard counters are. SCBW was filled with units that shouldn't be good against other units yet are with enough micro, for example, Vulture destroying Dragoons if used correctly, or be utterly useless if not.

Triceron
10-29-2012, 11:11 PM
Actually yeah, reading it over I don't know why I wrote that. Brood War was more about soft counters.

That being said, hard counters were still fun to watch. Zerg player goes Muta, Protoss answers with Corsairs and chases them down, Scourge appear and chases the Corsairs away. Asides from Muta stacking being borderline OP, the roles of the units weren't causing imbalances in gameplay because they were very defined. Everything's power was scaled by their cost, power and manufacturability.

SC2 has a major problem with power balance and critical mass. Critical mass should not be achievable if the hard counters were present and effective. Unfortunately, certain unit compositions end up being way more effective than they should be. Brood Lords should be easily killed by anti-air, but most air units are squishy or easily killed by corruptors/fungals. Ground AA is impossible to utilize effectively, since most ground AA die to broodlings as well. Brood Lords are also the only effective counter to Deathballs, since Zerg lose out on army trades against other compositions involving a lot of ranged units and splash damage.

If you take a look at Brood War (the expansion), half of the units were hard counter units. Lurkers, Corsairs and Valkyries are almost purely one-role units, and they end up giving the game a lot more depth.

Pr0nogo
10-30-2012, 10:53 AM
Out of what you said, only Valkyries are 'almost purely one-role units'. Lurkers and Corsairs gave the game more depth because of the gameplay options they unlocked, not because they were hard counters.