This page is for a more centralized discussion (unlike current wiki pages) that has more permanence (unlike discussions in lobby). Topics are rotated ad hoc.

Balance suggestions are proposed here for commenting.


Google Frog: Remove minelayers and make all arm cons able to build tick mine and all core cons able to build roach mine. This would happen with t1 kbots becoming the cap/rez bots so the t1 engineers aren't needed.

Saktoth: Imo mines should either be regular units made from all cons, or upgrades/abilities/morphs. Say, having a regular combat unit, weasel maybe, that can lay mines, letting roaches/etc morph into mines etc.

Capture/Rez on cons

Google Frog: Remove, capture is much more useful than rez and basically gives all arm cons a weapon. I think rez and capture should be given to 1 or 2 cons from arm and core (t1 kbots?) and the rest should lose it.

Saktoth: Agree, if capture exists, it should be a weapon, properly weaponized (auto-attack etc), on a dedicated unit (with the HP, speed and cost appropriate). Otherwise, its a useless ability on a constructor or its buildpower on a combat unit.

Sesmic Detection

Google Frog: Does anyone have any good reasons to keep it? See the disscussion in ticket 732


Smaller decloak radius? It's hueg liek xbox ATM (220, same as sniper!)
Saktoth: Unit needs to be totally rebalanced in a new role. Its just there as a placeholder.
Google Frog: It's an arm unit, good vs weak skirmishers but not much else.


  • Arm shield weaker repulse (ie. take more time to stop shot) Sak: Why? This just makes the deflection less reliable.
  • Core (T2) shield drain less E Google Frog: Arm sheilds recharge really really fast (20s for crabe and 7 for gateway). Increase recharge time. Also Crabe shield needs a bit less power. I agree that core sheilds are weak in comparison with arm.


Remove cloak capture !
KR: This would break consistency with all the other Arm cons.
Sak: Yes, remove it on all cons, weaponized constructors suck (esp in the sea).
Marmoth: Sak + 1 (what about core rez then?)


Google Frog: atm it's appearing really early in teamgames before antis are set up. If people are forced to make antis early on the game will slow down so I think the solution is to nerf nuke. It could have more reload time so you have a chance to quickly get anti if you are nuked without one and it could cost more.
KingRaptor: I could increase its cost to >9k, though an increased reload time would be pretty annoying.
Google Frog: what about increasing the cost of the missile and decreasing silo cost so silo + missile is still 9k. This way one base might be lost but by the time the second one is launched everyone has antinukes and the nuking team would make sure that they don't.


  • Take away its cloak. Yes, you heard me. Cloaking stealth jammer plane that has twice the workertime of T1 facs = do not want.
  • Sak: +1
  • Google Frog: Or make decloak radius really big so it can't sneak into bases but it isn't seen with random scouting. (marmoth: why not)
  • Sak: How about we stick this unit in the specops lab, where it fits, as a fast cloaked land constructor. Weaver loses its cloak, so now there are 2 cons. Its con bloat but a unit like this will fit better than as a plane imo (and the cloak will fit better than on the weaver). Core can possibly get an equiv.


  • Reduce cost? Increase HP?
  • Sak: Is this thing that UP? I dont think its HP needs a increase its already pretty hard to stop.

Moho Exploiter

KingRaptor: Apparently a noobtrap. I don't really like the unit anyway, what should be done with them?
Saktoth: There should be 'heavy' mexes that dont die like tissue paper. But the moho exploiter is just too much, it shouldnt be a serious defensive structure. I'd like to revise the regular exploiter too, and the twilight (which, at only 2x the cost of a reg mex, with cloak, jam, 6x the hp and an emp death, seems a bit too attractive). There should be a heavy mex whose job is mostly just to survive, rather than being an llt replacement like the exploiter.

CarRepairer: I almost thing we should drop twilight and exploiter altogether. Twilight is already a strange idea, cloaking a mex where there are limited spots to place them anyway. And now the red circle under it is back so it's even easier to spot if you know what you're doing. Exploiter should probably also go. Does it stop producing metal when it fires? I sometimes wonder if it's even cost effective in most scenarios. We should just have heavy armored mexes like Saktoth said.

Marmoth: I think twilight and exploiter should be kept. Perhaps with a bit lower hp. A heavy armored extractor (same hp as a fusion or something like this) should be added. Morph should be added.

Popups (Pit Bull/Viper)

KingRaptor: These things are a relic of when we still had T1 and T2 buildings. Does anyone feel that they promote excessive porc, and completely mess up the arty vs static equation? Is it time to retire them?
Saktoth: Anti-artillery static defense is an important part of the game, imo. There needs to be something you can build which will give you a way to bunker down under artillery fire, some kind of fallback. Perhaps it shouldnt be the powerful and versatile pitbull/viper, but these things -are- pretty expensive for what you get and dont outrange HLTs like in BA. Afterall, artillery isnt, and shouldnt be, the only or a universal way to deal with static defenses. There should be a way to hunker down in response to an artillery + riot spammer.
Google Frog: popups seem fine. Atm they are like hlts but without the range and more reload, more of an all purpose gun.
Marmoth: Pop-ups should be kept. Perhaps it should be used for another kind of tower (anti-swarm?). Could have a good regen to really make arti unefficient against them. (pop up/non pop up roles should be used to strongly differenciate units - including AA).
Saktoth: Anti-swarm is anti-raider. Popups are anti-arty. I dont know how good an idea to combine the two, we already have anti-swarm turrets (2, on arm). Hell, the llt is prettymuch anti-raider too. It should probably be a pretty general turet. Regen might be interesting but we do have repair already doing this.


Google Frog: The t1 and t2 gunships are too similar. Atm one is just a bigger version of the other.

  • Light Gunship: Slightly less hp more speed and a bit more damage. This makes it a raiding, fast response gunship which is also now better vs heavy gunships and bombers due to damage. It's for use against things that can't shoot back well.
  • Heavy Gunship: More HP with lower damage and speed. This can be the assault gunship that can withstand some AA fire.

Gunships should have noticeably different speeds. With a unit which is basically a flying gun with a certain amount of staying power there aren't many other stats to tweak.

KingRaptor: Apparently Rapier needs HP nerf, I think BlackDawn? could get a slight DPS and major HP buff. +1 to Google's idea for differentiating T1 and T2 gunships.
Saktoth: Current, the blackdawn and rapier are nicely differentiated.
Google Frog: ...except that rapier is OP due to hp and Blackdawn is worse than Brawler. I agree though, blackdawn and rapier are different so the proposed changes would apply more to arm but I still would like to see some speed difference for core.
Saktoth: Actually, i agree with google changes/design. Also worth noting is that t2 should be inaccurate and have AoE.

KingRaptor: Current stats:

  • HP/cost
    • Banshee: 4.8
    • Rapier: 6.548 (o_o)
    • Brawler: 2.888
    • Black Dawn: 3.295
  • DPS/cost
    • Banshee: 0.218
    • Rapier: 0.161
    • Brawler: 0.222
    • Black Dawn: 0.318 (spreads)

Hurm. What to make of this? The Banshee/Brawler relationship is opposite of what is expected. Banshee has much higher stats per cost and shoots air (and is the fastest gunship to boot), though one should factor in weightclass as well. Black Dawn doesn't seem as bad as I thought. Rapier HP is lulzy high, though it has the worst DPS/cost of the gunships. Thoughts?
Google Frog: Banshees are problaby not super OP because lots of AA has spash damage and gunships tend to clump. Rapiers can assault bases because staying power matters more in gunships than damage, it takes time to get to the enemies AA.


Sak: UP. reduce cost/increase HP? * Better manouverability?

Maneuverability buff sufficient, or needs more? Sak: Needs more imo.

Enforcer (corroy)

  • Reduce maxvelocity (3.2 to ~2.5)
  • Reduce turret turn rate? (already quite slow atm)

Saktoth: Why, to either? Its already slower than vettes and with its poor manoeuvrability they should catch it easily. What is it outrunning that it shouldnt?

Evil4Zerggin: It looks like we've been having a lot of trouble with skirmishers lately--it seems a little speed and range makes a huge difference balance-wise, even if the unit can't strictly outrun most enemies. In any case, compare to Banisher:

  • 64% the cost
  • 60% the damage on main missle (but reloads faster)
  • 2.43x the hit points (3.78x per cost)
  • Faster and better acceleration, but poorer turn rate
  • Additional AA missile

Granted, there's more in play than the direct comparison shows (for one thing the Banisher got hit with the nerfstick pretty hard), but the difference there is pretty stark.

Saktoth: Not a valid comparison, sea units should be stronger. Sea works on a different scale, vettes still cream it and its useless vs subs. And yet, try it versus say, land assault tanks in closed testing. It still gets raped.

Google Frog: Once you have about 6 Enforcers they become very good against vetts. No enforcers are lost. It's the skirm damage threshold; when attacking skirms with raiders you need a certain number of units to start doing damage. I still think they are too powerful and spam them every sea game I've played recently.

Saktoth: Couldnt this also be said of arm destroyers? They're less accurate and reload faster, but the old core destroyer had double the reload of the arm one so it'd be similiar(typical for core/arm).

Google Frog: Destroyer isn't really good vs fast flimsy things. Also the missiles don't lose range when attacking high ground unlike arm's destoryer. This affects land bombardment.

Sak: Less range by design and rubbish with radar hover (the missile veers). Corvettes are hardly 'flimsy', though they are fast and sometimes dodge roys. But if you're talking sea-sea, that deptcharge really helps arm roys vs ships (It needs to be made properly accurate, ill fix that). Either way, subs eat missile roys too.


  • Reduce turret turnrate by 25% (120 to 90, same as Stumpy)
  • Increase cost (220 to 230)
  • Reduce HP (880 to 620) (More needed? Problem seems to be that they kill too fast, not die too slow)

Det: Increase reload is probably the best fix.
Sak: Its reloads already pretty huge.
Google Frog: maybe an aoe nerf. Janus will kill a lot of pw each shot when attacked by a swarm. If there are lots of janus lots of pw are needed making the pw really bunched.
Sak: As predicted, its problem is its damage, not its HP. The HP nerf didnt seem to do much.
Google Frog: I think aoe nerf would be more effective but a damage nerf might be needed too.
Marmoth: Make them really low hp so that they will not survive rushes, air rushes or sufficient arty. In that way, they keep their role but can be countered. Preventing them from hitting backwards would make them easy targets when fleeing (prevent too hazardous assaults). [[BR]Saktoth: Almost all skirmishers are slowly creeping towards sub-500 HP. I dont think this is the answer. I think we need to re-examine the whole idea of 'range+speed' as advantages, as it leads to units that need to be very weak to not be OP. We should think about just range, as an advantage. Archers over cavalry archers as ive said many times. There should only be a few cavalry archer style units and it is -required- that they be very weak, or OP.


  • Reduce range to 1100 (More than low-traj arty, less than merl/trem) from 1400.
  • Reduce HP to <4.5k (from 7k)
  • Something else?

Det: Anni seems fine to me. It can only pick off Arty 1 at a time and a cloaker + dominator pack can probably kill it in 1 salvo.
Sak: Core doesnt have cloaker and dominators dont outrange it at all. It has 7k HP, more than the heavy assault tanks.
Google Frog: "Core doesnt have cloaker" have you ever seen an Anni made in a 1v1? A potential counter is to make a wall for the doms to hide behind.
Sak: You cant rely on one faction for a counter, cloakers dont counter everything, there should be other ways to assault defenses. You cant even get in range to make your terraform wall in the first place, and doms arent long range arty (900 or so i think thier range is). The anni shoots right through shields so there goes that one, too. It has almost the HP of a Reaper yes is a long-range artillery structure that can outrange merls and tremors and has 300 DPS! Not to even mention is closed arty/air resistance.
Google Frog: The anni has the role of the punisher instead of anti-heavy due to it's range. It's for breaking enemy defence. A range nerf would be good as well as a hp nerf because 7k hp makes it too hard to kill.
Sak: Only the Anni has like 3-4x the HP, 3x the DPS and only costs, what, 20% more? OH, and pops down! And actually, punn has 1200 range- you can kill it with tremor/merl. Yeah this shits OP.


* Remove the anni-style weapon and replace it with some kind of AoE weapon. IMO this shouldnt be a ranged/artillery weapon, it should be antiswarm. Its already almost invul to artillery due to its pack/unpack.

Det: I'm not sure how I feel about this one. The anni style beam range is lower than merl/anni/vanguard/catapault. Pretty easy to arty it combined with assault. If he leaves it closed then he has big metal investment that isn't helping to defend. If he opens it then the forementioned units will rape it.
Sak: Close it when being bombarded, open it when assaulted. Duh. You can force him to open it by assaulting it but arty doesnt do enough DPS to kill it in the short time it'll be open. You cant spam jeffies or fleas at it to get him to open it because he can just make a few llts to stop that, and if you spam it with a -lot- of small light units you're making a huge investment that he can easily open against and heat-rayerize.

Moho Geos

Saktoth: I think these are a tad too cost effective.
Det: I think it is key for them to be very cost effective. They have a nice territorial effect. The real question is terraform and whether sinking is good or bad.
Sak: No, i think they really dump too much e into your econ, and the morph gives you heaps of free BP.
Google Frog: they give a lot of E for cost, maybe too much.


  • How's it now?


Saktoth: Is this still a problem? I think the tick feels pretty good now. Its probably underused (Just cuz its hard to use- its not UP!). The ticks status as OP/UP tends to be whether google is using it or not.

  • deathweapon has 75% damage of selfdweapon (from 100%)
    Licho: disagree, no point since its using selfdweapon only and some people say its stupid micro to self manually
    KingRaptor: Tick already auto-selfds upon contact, though the kamikazeRange might need an increase.

(above two changes don't really matter against T1)
Saktoth: How many times have i told you, Licho, that selfdweapon is the one used when the tick 'kamikazes'. The deathweapon only triggers when the tick is destroyed prematurely (IE, you sucessfully intercepted it, IE, it should do less). I agree with thise change.
Licho: I know so why changing it since its using self-d automatically?? Why adding hard to recognize and hard to use nuance to tick?
kingraptor: Crawlie bombs have had weaker death explosions since AA (our roach and probably skuttle still do). The idea is that if you manage to kill the tick before it reaches you, it shouldn't hurt as much.
Licho: ok

  • paralyzetime 20 -> 10 (deathweapon), 30 ->18 (selfdweapon)
    Licho: disagree. Time is major nerf. I would rather nerf damage/edge than time, you need some time to get combat unit in place to kill the paralyze units.
    quantum: Imo it's too cheap. The problem seems to be Tick spam.
    Licho: I agree price should probably fix it (though compare with bladewing which is even cheaper)
    Saktoth:Disagree, you need enough time to intercept the target.

Marmoth: Tick spam isnt a viable tactic since you risk to paralyze your own units making a continuous flow of ticks.

KingRaptor: The thing about nerfing tick damage is, unless you combine it with edgeeffectiveness, you could cut the current damage in half and every T1 unit would still be paralyzed in one hit (except HLT and maybe ravager). Currently, the way paralyzetime works means that once the unit starts taking damage, its para-timer increases, meaning a T1 unit can have 1s left on its timer, then a peewee reaches it and becomes perma-lyzed. TBH I'm fresh out of ideas for this thing, which is why I always wanted to axe it.
Saktoth: The edge effectiveness is low enough that a damage reduction will see difference. Anyway, a damage reduction on the ticks death explosion was in my original round of nerfs- Licho vetoed it (Perhaps because he doesnt understand how kamikaze works).
Licho: reducing damage is not good idea, because it will prevent it from paralyzing many t1 units. Even now you need multiple ticks to stun ravager. Thats why I would rather increase cost.
Saktoth: Multiple ticks is prettymuch the standard (If they're being used) by the phase of the game that you have ravagers etc. Google says 'dont just use one tick use many'. This allows their cost to scale, too.
Det: Tick seems ok-ish to me. I should mention that lower death weapon probably benefits the user as much as it hurts it. Much of the time it is killed, it is allied units which are at risk, not enemy. I'd rather make them equal to cut down on the confusion.


Does it need more work? Saktoth: I think its a but unremarkable as a unit but its balance seems ok-ish. Perhaps a bit cheap/spammy.

  • reduce rof to 1/2 of current and keep DPS
  • OR only fire forward
  • OR stop to fire

Det: Morty seems ok to me.


Marmoth: Fido are now UP imo. They aren't much better than hammer. To differenciate to morty, they could be a bit faster and have a smaller range. High traj could also be an option. Saktoth: Faster is a pain in the butt onskirms. Less range makes them more like rocko. High traj is rarely an advantage. I vote they be removed, we already have the sniper and spider as skirms.


Fine? Det: EMP death is silly. This applies to sharpshooter as well.
Evil4Zerggin: What is wrong with EMP death exactly? Too hard to mass? Too annoying to use?
Google Frog: Mumbo only works on it's own to skirm t1 units. It can also be used as a t2 tick.
Sak: Det hates this unit now (since i beat him with it). IMO raider/riot/skirm is a stupid combo no matter its stats.


May need a nerf?

Saktoth: Vanguard is probably OP now, due to raptors changes. Lets leave t3 alone for now. Its semi-useful-late-game-and-not-OP. For now, i think thats fine. Cata and Vanguard have Merl range with better accuracy, they're quite powerful.
Det: Vanguard is way OP now. I don't know what role I'd like to see it in.
Google Frog: It's longer range arty but it does cost 4k. That's similar to nuke and it's a lot of stumpies

Juggernaut and bantha

  • make them cost same. Juggernaut now seems to be better and its cheaper.

Evil4Zerggin: Maybe make the bantha a fire-support unit to contrast with Jugg? (good range, high damage, low hp for its cost)
Saktoth: Id rather remove it, there is a poll on this topic.
Google Frog: are these units even needed?

T2 Subs

  • Increase cost

Saktoth: They're pretty expensive already. T2 Sea needs to be re-done.
Google Frog: t2 arty sub does a lot of damage and has really long range. I suspect that it's OP.
Sak: Arty sub hasnt been touched since BA, where its stupidly UP and massively expensive. Ive never even seen these things make cost. I meant the attack sub.
Evil4Zerggin: I think I might have altered its stats a while ago, but I don't remember if I did or what I did (although probably on the buff side if I did do anything).


Is this still a problem?

  • remove mercury/screamer or make them much more expensive. These defenses shut down air too effectively. I dont think defensive turrent should have such range.

Evil4Zerggin: Throw Peepers at them?
Saktoth: These are fine. They're very expensive and you pay for every single shot. They dont even make cost on t1 fighters, let alone peepers.
Det: Mercury is a waste of metal, I have never tried and failed to counter them with peeper. Perhaps mercury should get rid of ammo and fire a salvo like defender.
Sak: Can still be wasted by peepers.
Google Frog: I'd rather spam chainsaws as anti bomber. 4 will make bombing impossible.


Det: I hate inaccurate BB. It was probably just overnerfed in cost.
Sak: Honestly i dont think it really improves gameplay. Role problem, rather than a balance problem. We can leave it as UP status symbol if we like but id be loathe to make it really viable, because it can clog games up.
Evil4Zerggin: I've never been a huge fan of LRPCs. Once LRPCs start going up, it's difficult to make any sort of meaningful territorial advance (since any mexes, forward shield generators, con swarms, etc. get sniped). The range of LRPC is such that one can usually put it inside one's primary base and still be able to strike the enemy base. It's been argued that LRPC forces the enemy to strike at your base--but if the enemy could get the capability to destroy structures in the most protected area of your base, why are they not doing so in the first place?
KingRaptor: Perhaps they should have shorter range, less accuracy, and be cheaper. That way, you couldn't do base-to-base sniping with them, only suppress a forward position (kind of like camping mobile arty outside shooting at radar dots, but a lot less accurate).