Reducing their building time i'm saying make them build slower not faster. So if you think it's the opposite just add more seconds to their building time.


Archons have counterpart in ultralisk the only difference archons are the best anti-air and ultralisk best tanking anti-ground. And high archon have counterpart defiler but defiler is limited and just more expensive. The only problem is terran; zerg and protoss can compare to each other and just need some slight balancing. If immortals regenerate shields shouldn't be broodlings or other zerg unit regen too because void rays and immortals for protoss regenerate but only roaches for zerg. And terran have none just medics that heals with their separate building.


I'm not saying to make it cheaper. You needed 333 minerals just for 1 queen and 256 for just overlord. Can't you make the queens 1.5 or 2 in return for the 256 compensation for just overlord just like when you add lurkers for the lair just like 270 for detector with one corsair.

Defilers cast dark swarm, not Devourers lol.

edit: @Above post: Increase A's building time = Make A build slower. (Increase time used to build A)
Decrease A's building time = Make A build faster. (Decrease time used to build A)

Also, Lanthanide please don't listen to the above post. To me it looks like someone that just wants more "pizzazz" in the game. He reminds me of Blizzard balancing and map making.... and we all know what that looks like...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 20 2012, 2:14 am by 3FFA.

LOL, well you knew what I meant. I haven't gotten the chance to try for more scourge. I've been playing as T with noobs too much.

Raise air damage on Banshee to 9 or 8 since you removed the Valkyrie they are basically very useless against air especially when they target air units instead of ground units.

They're not supposed to be good vs air. If your banshees are wasting time attacking air units, build some wraiths as well.

thats what I do, but you removed the anti air for the Banshee so basically its 100% weaker vs air.
The vultures are nice but you should add more damage to the banshees because they are deprived of their anti air damage.

They've always been weak against air. Build some more goliaths, or something.

For anyone reading this post if you're playing this game with protoss just build a bunch of immortals and reavers early see if any enemy can beat you. If they started air make some archons and psi storm for zerg, if against terran add mind control for darck archon. Lastly build some stargates and mass carriers. Don't use boom for silo. Use boom if you think you're night defense is getting damage then it all comes down to saving special. Don't use special when you're army is winning. Try this and you'll be good at this game in no time. Anyone here just doesn't know how powerful immortals and reavers are and just wanting speed. Speed is irrelevant in this game if you can hold your own fort with your slow units because they would just push the enemies sooner or later.

while playing i notice that the mothership it's a main target, it's kinda frustrating when you build an arbiter tribunal for 1750 minerals and when it spawn just kill like 9-12 units and just stasis 3-6 units, all units concentrate all attack on the mothership, the mothership should be a secondary target like vessels, medivac, dark archon etc.

Nothing I can do about it, it's default Starcraft AI. Some units simply have very high 'aggro', like the arbiter, and others very low, like workers, broodlings and observers. Also the fact that the arbiter cloaks everyone around it, and if the enemy doesn't have some detection they'll naturally target the only unit they can hit.

The mothership has been balanced with this 'usually fast death' in mind. Note that if it isn't killed off quickly, it can end up being very strong, especially against units that can't attack it like guardians.

There are still some problems lately with the terran nuke countering mc and infest. recently I've been in a lot of games where people would rage about the nuke being useless(even in 2.47 an above)cause when they nuke and I have like a shiitload of units on the battlefield more than they do my units can still push into their buildings an cause massive damage meaning that their nuke was useless compared to old versions under 2.42 where nuke chops off all units on the enemy's side but cant counter the ones on the opposite side, so if I have like 500 units spawning an they get nuked they can still push right thru the enemy's units if they have like 100 or less which is why people say that the nuke sux very badly, also I had a game 2 nights ago where the bc nuke was attacking a hydra(again like the last previous ones before 2.45 and up)or something instead of temple as one of my teammates was pissed like hell and told me about it, i hope this replay that I attached on here works i think this is the one where it happend

Attachments:

It takes a really long time to watch through replays, so if you aren't sure it is the one where the nuke targetting bug happened, I'm not going to watch it. Also some indication of which team and when abouts in the replay the issue happened is needed.

My answer to those concerns: nuke is situational. It is more defensive than the other specials, but at the same time it also does a guaranteed 3000 damage, which the other specials definitely do not. Usually nuke is very powerful. Sometimes it's just average. Other times it's not good at all. That's just how it is. Similarly a MC that gets immediately countered by an enemy infestation/nuke/MC isn't very powerful either, or one that happened when there weren't many units on the field or your ally just boomed, or your defense just got killed so 10 seconds were added to the timer and you MC went off before the enemy units spawned.

That's just part of the game.


Edit: I should clarify here that this complaint is really just about Change.

Simply put, the behaviour of nuke has changed and it is up to players to adapt to this change. In some cases nuke is now less powerful than it used to be, but I believe in many more cases it is much more powerful (such as countering Infestation and MC). Ultimately I think the nuke is now stronger and more useful than it used to be. If players want to have the new behaviour in addition to the old behaviour, then it would be overpowered. As noted above, it already does a guaranteed (except for any bugs!) 3,000 damage to the temple, which can be a lot more than the other specials do. It is also cheaper, and Terran's can refund their add-ons to get a final game-winning nuke which is something the other races simply can't do.

I have had many people on b.net thank me for continuing to update and improve the map and I believe that the balance is genuinely getting pretty close now. Changing the way some game systems work is simply a part of the continual improvement; in particular I think the insta-spawn powerup has added a good element of strategy to the game. Frankly I find the new scatter effect on the nuke quite fun to watch (especially if 2 nukes go off at once) and this in itself is a good reason to retain it's new behaviour.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 22 2012, 10:58 pm by Lanthanide.

Just amended my reply above.

I've played a few games of this over the weekend and have been thinking of some changes to make.

- Reduce Dark Templar spawn to 1.25 from current 1.33
- Reduce Archon damage to 36 from 40 (no change to void rays or ultralisks)
- Reduce Immortals spawn to 1.33 from current 1.66. Reduce damage to 14 from 15.
- Possibly increase zealot HP by some amount and reduce shields, on the order of 15 to 30. Armor is -4 damage and 50% damage from explosive while shields are only -3 damage and 100% from all.
- Possibly +1 damage to hero stalkers (taking them to 18 I believe). Possibly $200 from $210.

Protoss armies have a distinct tilt in favour of Archons/High Templar at the moment, so I think these changes would help balance it back a bit. I don't see stalkers made in any significant quantities any more simply because archons are so much better in all respects, so hopefully this would help a bit. One thing I do like about Protoss at the moment is that the best counter to Immortals are Zealots and Dark Templar.

- Kerrigan spawn increased to 1.33 from current 0.66. Probably -20 to -30 hp.
- Lurkers +10-15 hp, as they're effectively now higher up the tech scale and cost more to get than they used to.
- Possibly +5 hp to 40 on zerglings, they would then take 7 marine shots to kill instead of 6.
- Possibly -$10-20 on queen's nest or lair.
- Possibly change queen spawns, to 1.25 or 1.50 for hive. I really want to keep the max at 6-7 though because mass-ensnare becomes impossible to counter, so this could see lair's being reduced to 0.75 queens to help even it out (they're useless without spells on their first spawn anyway).

Hi, I'm an avid player of Desert Strike and recently checked out this forum.

I react accordingly to what the opponents do and enjoy playing 1v1. I take note of the opponent when I lose. It seems like Protoss is the race to choose for 1v1 since it is hard to counter the combination of reavers+archons/templars+air with terran or zerg unless the opponent goes with Protoss too.

However, I would like to point out when it goes to late game and there are too many units on the field duking it out, you seemed to have installed this algorithm that one of the players get the full spawn and the other player gets whatever remaining spawn until it reaches 'cannot create more units' and then the other player gets the full spawn in the next turn and so on.

It is 'fair' gameplay, but usually it causes too much lag so I am suggesting if there is a way to limit the number of certain air units on the field. Perhaps no more than 40 carriers, 50 BC's, and maybe 100 devourers/guardians/corsairs/scouts?

The map max is mainly caused by interceptors. Scarabs also contribute. Zerglings are another common factor.

Unfortunately the real way to 'fix' this is to cap carriers, but they are the only protoss air unit that actually does Normal damage. All of the other air attacks do Explosive which makes them particularly weak vs mutalisks and scourge, and also not so great vs enemy corsairs which are medium (all other air units are large, even wraiths which should be medium). Even if I capped it to 40 carriers, that can still take up 360 unit slots right there, or 21% of the total maximum (1700). So the cap on carriers for map-max purposes realistically needs to be more like 20 on the battlefield per team, but IMO that unfairly penalises protoss because it is their air unit with a lot of HP and the best counter to mass BC and mass devourer. I can't really make interceptors do too much more damage than they already do or even small numbers of carriers would become very strong.

Basically I'm in a rather a bind for what can be done with carriers. Ideally I would cap them at 6 interceptors per carrier and balance them that way, but unfortunately that isn't possible with the trigger actions available in Starcraft (to add interceptors to a carrier is Add, not Set, if it was Set I'd be fine).


Incidentally on the "lag" aspect, this happens when people are playing SC on older computers that can't handle mass units / triggers very well. If everyone in the game has decent computers, no such 'lag' will be seen. Point in fact the last game I played yesterday one of the enemies told me to use my boom up to destroy all the carriers on the field (there were a lot, causing map-max on spawn) because it was going to start "lagging". I didn't do it, and there were no instances of lag whatsoever. I actually won that game, even though it ended in a 1v2 special fight and I was the #1. My zerg ally dropped out about 60% of the way through the game. My superior skills shone through in the end . I do firmly believe that with the new 20%/25% and 40%/50% bonus mineral rates for 5-6 mines for unbalanced teams, it is a lot more feasible to win the game now, although it will still take above-average skill to do so (much less margin for error).

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 23 2012, 1:04 am by Lanthanide.

I'm pretty sure Corsair's Neutron Flare attack is normal damage, but I get your point.

Carrier is indeed a huge part of Protoss army fleet so limiting them only 20 per battlefield is not the way to go.
I think you mentioned this earlier, but how about if you significantly weaken the HP of the interceptor or get rid of the Carrier Capacity Upgrade like you did on Stim Pack? The Carrier itself is an excellent tanking unit and a distraction for the opponent, so I think it is a viable unit even with 4 interceptors.

increase price on carriers BCs and guardians and increase there damage and life and everything this way theres less of those units on the field.

Corsair is definitely explosive: http://classic.battle.net/scc/protoss/pstats.shtml

Carriers / interceptors just seem to suck when there're only 4. It's almost like the unit AI was designed around having a full complement of 8 interceptors. This is just sort of a feeling, though, but for example it seems like there's an 'attack window' of some time, lets say it's 1.5 seconds, during which all the interceptors attack. If you've got 8 interceptors, then you get 8 attacks during that 1.5 seconds. If you only have 4, then you only get 4 attacks during the same window. Note that this is subtly different from having each interceptor have it's own individual attack timer. The preceding is all simply speculative / for illustrative purposes as to what I perceive to be a problem with only 4 interceptors.

I've also read that interceptor attacks have a unique programmed response compared to attacks from other units: enemy units in a larger area will respond to the interceptor and will advance forwards to try and attack the carrier / other interceptors. If this is true then it's another reason why 8 interceptors work a lot better than 4, because 4 still provoke the same reaction but don't have the firepower to deal with it.

Anyway if I cut interceptors to 4, I'd be looking at increasing their damage to 12 or possibly 13 and buffing their HP/shields a little.

Do this and increase HP of Carrier?
edit: read your post after I posted this. Why not bump hp of carrier up and interceptor attack +2?

Yeah true, I played on west today and kicked ass good with my nukes as sometimes it can be powerful or weak against the enemy's mcs/infests/nukes. Im very sure that replay I sent you will show bc hitting a hydra just watch it and see. However I dunno why immortals keep going back and forth between 14 and 15 attacks they're just fine just the way they are cause most of the time they get killed easily still, also 2 immortals with reaver(instead of 1) would sure pick up the pace a bit guarding any units that gets in the reavers way I'm not telling u what to do, just my thought though on the 2 immortals/1 reaver thing. Speaking of reavers I was wondering if u can add in 1.25(just like the fake lanthanide did in version 2.25 lol) reaver per um whatya call that thing for reaver building robotics bay or watever.... Also reducing hydra would make it tougher(again not telling u what to do or anything like that)against toss enemies as archons does enough deadly damage to zerg I had many games where I fought off toss players using over 15 archons per spawn and failing to counter them with defilers, queens, hydras, ultras, guards, and lings altogether in balance.(my zerg play balance is good) I also dont find the "valks removed thing" too offensive my terran play was good today where I massed a shiitload of goliaths combined with a sufficient number of bcs per spawn although I hardly had much tanks. But goliath+wraith would be awesome against zerg air even without valks with the banshees. Many people are pissed about valks being removed making it tough to counter zerg or toss air but to me its not much of a problem lol