..An attempt to transition away from frictionless standard openings, disrupt conventional meta scripts and open the door to slightly more strategic variety in early game builds.
Larva Units (Drones, Roaches, Hydras, Mutalisks etc.):
1 Larva yields 2 units simultaneously.
Resource cost remain the same (e.g., 2 Drones for 100 minerals).
Zerglings (Exception):
1 Larva yields 2 Zerglings (1 pair).
Resource cost is now 75 minerals per pair.
Larva Spawn Rate: 15.6 seconds
Protoss & Terran Production (warpgate not effected):
Production Structure: Max 5 Charges per unit type per building.
Regular build times for the first 5 units.
Charge Recharge:+30% over standard baseline build time.
No, this is bad. Zerg already has extremely flexible and a very high production rate because of the way Larva works. Allowing Zerg to get 4-supply out of 1 Larva in the vast majority of cases would give them an extreme advantage over the other races.
This is an unnecessary nerf, and really just kicks Zerglings in the pants when combined with your other changes.
This is bad for several reasons:
It makes Overlords extremely expensive compared to everything else (unless they are also spawned in pairs).
Combined with the double-production boost above, this increases Zerg’s average production rate by roughly 27%, which is uncalled for.
It doubles the effectiveness of Spawn Larva.
It doubles the burst production capacity of hatcheries that have hit their Larva limit.
This is an absolutely terrible idea, especially for Terran.
First, players usually make specialized production structures for specific units, such as making Robotics Facilities because you need Colossus, or producing Starports because you need Vikings for anti-air. The change is just a wonky and unnecessary nerf.
Specifically for Terran, Reactors and Tech Labs also effectively “lock in” what units you are allowed to build out of whatever structure that they are attached to. This means that this charge system disproportionately nerfs Terran’s production; which is already expensive and time consuming to setup because of the combined effects of SCVs actively taking time to construct each structure, the combined cost of the structures and their add-ons, and the extra build time required specifically for the add-ons.
Regarding this “lock-in” effect:
A Barracks with Reactors can only produce Marines and Reapers, and of those, only Marines are viable. It has no capacity to switch to Marauders or Ghosts when it runs out of these arbitrary charges. Likewise, a Factory with a Reactor can only produce Hellions/Hellbats or Widow Mines. It does not have the capacity to switch to making Tanks or Thors.
Structures with Tech Labs effectively produce Reactored units at half capacity. You shouldn’t be making Marines out of a Tech Lab Barracks or Hellions out of a Tech Lab Factory if you can avoid it.
These are unwarranted and poorly thought out changes.
obviously if it hurts your feelings so much to address this concern then it clearly needs to be patched into the game - I understand you only want to spam out of the same production structure which by default this change will teach you how to play the game instead of being a parasite.
I suppose that is an option, but a lot of people enjoy also a random casual multiplayer experience as well and quite often prefer to return to a game that they know and like exactly because they enjoy a specific experience: a certain feel of the game mechanics, the way how the pacing goes, and so on. If the game is changed enough to effectively be considered a different game, it feels a bit disturbing to be forcefed a new game. If a new game is what is aimed for, the best option is to play that other different game then (or from the standpoint of Blizzard/Activision/Microsoft, to offer a new one to the players) instead of changing an existing one enough for it to feel completely different and altered.
Can you define where is the limit that divides a mod from a different game entirely? And if I bought a game because I liked how it plays and feels and how the gameplay proceeds, am I entitled to get the money back when what I bought for exactly those elements is not there anymore and the changes feel enforced and imposed?
Prior to purchase you agreed to the terms of service which does explain the game is subject to change via patches and updates.
Plus since you have already played what you paid for the contract is considered fulfilled. The continued use of the product your purchase you totally user discretion.
So no, you would in fact NOT be able to get any refund of any kind.
Under no circumstances did you purchase a product (since the game is free to play anyways) that would never change.
I get it, you don’t like what you’re playing, so change it to what you do like, this is why the Map editor was created. To enjoy maps/mods to your liking, plus they offer the means to share with the community and join in.
The argument you have here is that you’re unhappy, which I have read and understood, plus I have offered alternatives as a solution.
You don’t have to do them, but they were offered.
I get that your upset since your not getting what you want and when other offered solutions, you lash out.
The game is not free to play. It’s a commercial product. I’d love to have a way to play it on my own (or a community made and maintained) server of my own choosing, much like SC1 and Warcraft 3 were, or in a LAN environment. But that is not allowed, such capability has been actively removed, and this makes the fundamental difference. That the sorry state of selling services in the software domain has succumbed to endless pages of EULA and basically transforming software you BUY towards a product that needs an umbilicus connection to function at all, speaks only for the idiocy of the crowds today into having been herded to accept this state of affairs. Which of course for you might be all good and fine for this particular game, but for many others - obviously more of them than not as it’s being demonstrated from more people not liking the radical changes - it is not. You wouldn’t like your home which you bought and it’s your property now, to suddenly be changing shape of the rooms and the height of the ceilings from the construction company (at least not without you agreeing to the changes) just because they feel like it would be a good thing for you.
You don’t offer anything new of which I am not aware of. You simply dismiss it with a logic which is not much different from the one that is used in the cases of offering the “choice” to either admit something or suffer a punishment otherwise.
No, StarCraft II multiplayer and custom games went free to play many years ago.
The campaigns, skins, and some co-op commanders cost money to purchase, but the multiplayer is free right now.
You aren’t getting a refund, especially when your “problem” is that you don’t like a balance patch, something that every active competitive RTS on the market goes through at semi-regular intervals.
Furthermore, this game explicitly has an editor for players to make custom games, custom mods, etc that both they themselves and others can enjoy.
Extension mods in particular can be used to modify the multiplayer however you want to. I should know. I have an active multiplayer mod that I tweak with some regularity. Just find some friends (or don’t) and play on whatever mod, map, etc you would like. I am considering reverting some of the changes from this last multiplayer patch myself, although I haven’t done it yet.
Ladder isn’t supported, but you can pull up a map in custom games. You might have to load an extension mod. I don’t remember clearly because I haven’t gone back and played HOTS or WOL–For mech players in particular, the game got progressively better with each expansion.
I’ve played with friends in both WOL and HOTS settings and have enjoyed hours and hours of fun,
This fulfilling the contract when I purchased the game, long before it was free to play.
I am still never entitled to any refund.
I understand the contract of Terms when I bought the product, even as a collector edition.
Now we come closer to the heart of the problem right there. SC2 being deliberately crippled compared to other games that Blizzard has released in the past.
Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness - Kali servers
Warcraft 2: Beyond the Dark Portal - Kali servers, separate realm from the ToD one.
Starcraft - Battle.net
Starcraft: Brood War - Battle.net, separate ladder from “Starcraft”
Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos - Battle.net
Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne - Battle.net, separate ladder from RoC
Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty - Battle.net-2 (now not possible for play)
Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm - Battle.net-2 (now not possible for play)
Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void - Battle.net-2 (the only mode available)
All the other games had/have their own ladders corresponding to each game’s expansion level. SC2 on the other hand doesn’t allow two out of three of them, rather forcing everyone to only play one version. And this is exactly what most people are annoyed with: the recent changes that basically transform the game enough to be considered a different “edition”, yet unlike all the other ones before it disallowing the players to select the edition of preference.
I’m pretty sure that the Reign of Chaos and pre-reforged Frozen Throne ladders are shut down; and the latest version of the game doesn’t even have the old ROC data anymore.
That is irrelevant. The point is that the ladders exist separately, the same as in SC1 standard and SC1 Brood War, the possibility to play a selected expansion level, to the effect that they were sold and distributed as different separate “games” in the sense that the mechanics and the gameplay felt and were different, enough to make them not play the same.
The latest “patch” of SC2 LotV changed the game so much that the gameplay is so different that it falls in the exact same different gameplay that basically makes it a completely different experience. Personally in the previous games I liked Brood War mode more for SC1 and Reign of Chaos more for WC3 and fairly enough it was possible to choose between them. Something that now can not be done with SC2, hence the annoyance and disappointment of most of the players, who apparently seem to enjoy the previous gameplay feel of the previous iterations.