|
On June 06 2010 03:03 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 20:25 Aphelion wrote:On June 05 2010 18:59 Icetrain wrote:
The main problem, especially for zerg is that blizzard basically took all our counters to siege tanks from SC1 (lurkers, dark swarm, spawn broodling) and removed them without giving really anything to compensate. Have you played SC1? well...lurkers slow the push, and you kind of need them if you can't figure out if they're going mech, valkonic, or a bio switch. Spawn broodling was used both at blizzcon 2009 by zero, as well as in effort's recent game against flash. Dark swarm is a good tool to have regardless. So, he's not...wrong, exactly...
I saw that! Broodling strats have actually been doing really well against tanks, and I don't think it's because the terran is unprepared for it. Every 125 energy is a free tank kill, that's pretty solid in my book.
|
The dilemma of terran mech for the balance team is that given how immobile it is, it has to be super strong or there will be basically no reason to get it instead of bio. The problem I think with mech at the moment is not that the mech itself is too powerful - it has to be powerful - but that it's too easy to defend even when your army is on the other side of the map. One or two planetary fortresses surrounded by turrets can pretty much hold off anything, and aren't that expensive to get late game when your army is maxed out anyways. In Starcraft 1 this wasn't as bad because turrets did half damage vs mutas and there was no planetary fortress, so you always had to leave some units at home for defence.
|
This person makes a good point:
I think balance is fine for first retail patch.
However, did you consider that the match maker is supposed to give players a 50% chance to win? IMHO As long as the match maker works, the percentages should always be close to 50%. If there is an imbalance, the match maker would just put players of one race with stronger/weaker players of the other race.
Though maybe the random race prevents this, I have no idea.
Then the blue reply: Yeah, I sort of left out that it isn't a straight win/loss %. The numbers we're looking at are win/loss by player and some sort of math I don't understand that factors in player skill, and generates a more objective win/loss number. That's really vague... but yeah, it's more than just us making sure the matchmaker is working. 
I just facepalm when I read the blue post for the first time. Stuff like this doesn't help my impression of them. =/
|
Why? Isn't it great they're using a more refined method than straight up comparing win/ loss ratio? Especially since this keeps rush-wins from severely impacting balancing at higher levels.
|
I just facepalm when I read the blue post for the first time. Stuff like this doesn't help my impression of them. =/
If the guy making posts in the forums was good enough at programming/math to do the balance himself, he would not be the guy posting in the forums.
I'm sure the statisticians doing the number crunching know full well what they are doing. They probably generate a composite W/L ratio for each race weighted by the overall rating each player. Do you really want a bottom diamond player who losing to terran 80% of the time to be weighted the same as someone who is like #5 in north america and loses 55% of the time?
Hell, they can probably do really cool stuff, like index only games where the terran player made >5 thors and >10 tanks or something. Who knows...
|
Blizzard:
...and some sort of math I don't understand that factors in player skill... That's really vague... but yeah, it's more than just us making sure the matchmaker is working.
Seriously? How do I get this guys job?
|
On June 08 2010 13:04 cursor wrote:Blizzard:Show nested quote +...and some sort of math I don't understand that factors in player skill... That's really vague... but yeah, it's more than just us making sure the matchmaker is working. Seriously? How do I get this guys job?
I don't get what you are on about. Any PR person in a big company has usually broad but quite shallow knowledge about things going on in the company. You can't expect a community manager to instantly know all facts in detail. You wouldn't either.
|
On June 02 2010 21:09 Keyser wrote:
This is what seperates good players from bad ones. Bad players encounter a strategy that seems tough and then come here to whine about how overpowered it is, while good players find a way around it. It has always been that way and it will always be that way. It's the failure to take the game for what it is and trying to win, and instead trying to make Blizzard ease it up for you. All these comparisons and the theorycrafting is just rationalizing. Get out there and play more games, find and way to win and quit the whining. Yes, your whining may possibly help Blizzard, but trust me when I tell you that you're never going to get anywhere as a player when you resort to whining rather than trying.
And please, don't give me crap about how highly ranked you are(speaking to anyone who responds), rank means nothing in this game at this stage. Without any prior SC experience I went top 10 platinum with 70% wins in my first 30 games just by macroing and attack-moving all the units I could build.
Just bending over and taking it isn't a good suggestion. There's a reason that people complain - some things need to be fixed. Yea, some complaints are unwarranted, but when a topic is as controversial as this one is, then it obviously isn't just some random person complaining.
|
On June 08 2010 13:10 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 13:04 cursor wrote:Blizzard:...and some sort of math I don't understand that factors in player skill... That's really vague... but yeah, it's more than just us making sure the matchmaker is working. Seriously? How do I get this guys job? I don't get what you are on about. Any PR person in a big company has usually broad but quite shallow knowledge about things going on in the company. You can't expect a community manager to instantly know all facts in detail. You wouldn't either.
I don't know anything about blizzard's inner workings and I posted in here or the other thread by raelcun that the 50/50 numbers had to be off just from my experience and the experiences of other diamond zergs and terrans on ladder. Then a day or so later he posts that the numbers are skewed. Seriously get some smarter people in there. I hate to be harsh but I'd do their job for free.
And please, don't give me crap about how highly ranked you are(speaking to anyone who responds), rank means nothing in this game at this stage. Without any prior SC experience I went top 10 platinum with 70% wins in my first 30 games just by macroing and attack-moving all the units I could build.
There have been a million posts on this already. Rank means nothing it's all about rating. I was in top ten in 1vs1 and 2vs2 but then I got stuck into a league with the likes of joseki pinder and others after one of the resets and I was like rank 17.
Do you really want a bottom diamond player who losing to terran 80% of the time to be weighted the same as someone who is like #5 in north america and loses 55% of the time?
I don't want this but if they're going to try to make the game balanced at all levels of play than clearly they are aren't being congruent with the earlier patch changes. It's like they're just doing whatever they want without justification and they'll skew the facts to fit their vision.
|
On June 08 2010 13:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 21:09 Keyser wrote:
This is what seperates good players from bad ones. Bad players encounter a strategy that seems tough and then come here to whine about how overpowered it is, while good players find a way around it. It has always been that way and it will always be that way. It's the failure to take the game for what it is and trying to win, and instead trying to make Blizzard ease it up for you. All these comparisons and the theorycrafting is just rationalizing. Get out there and play more games, find and way to win and quit the whining. Yes, your whining may possibly help Blizzard, but trust me when I tell you that you're never going to get anywhere as a player when you resort to whining rather than trying.
And please, don't give me crap about how highly ranked you are(speaking to anyone who responds), rank means nothing in this game at this stage. Without any prior SC experience I went top 10 platinum with 70% wins in my first 30 games just by macroing and attack-moving all the units I could build. Just bending over and taking it isn't a good suggestion. There's a reason that people complain - some things need to be fixed. Yea, some complaints are unwarranted, but when a topic is as controversial as this one is, then it obviously isn't just some random person complaining.
Do you think that if you try out different builds, train them, refine them to counter a dominant strategy is "bending over and taking it"?
common! this isnt world of warcraft where you are stuck with 3 or 5 buttons and a bit of movement. its starcraft2. its a strategy game. and it will continue to be that way.
|
On June 08 2010 13:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 21:09 Keyser wrote:
This is what seperates good players from bad ones. Bad players encounter a strategy that seems tough and then come here to whine about how overpowered it is, while good players find a way around it. It has always been that way and it will always be that way. It's the failure to take the game for what it is and trying to win, and instead trying to make Blizzard ease it up for you. All these comparisons and the theorycrafting is just rationalizing. Get out there and play more games, find and way to win and quit the whining. Yes, your whining may possibly help Blizzard, but trust me when I tell you that you're never going to get anywhere as a player when you resort to whining rather than trying.
And please, don't give me crap about how highly ranked you are(speaking to anyone who responds), rank means nothing in this game at this stage. Without any prior SC experience I went top 10 platinum with 70% wins in my first 30 games just by macroing and attack-moving all the units I could build. Just bending over and taking it isn't a good suggestion. There's a reason that people complain - some things need to be fixed. Yea, some complaints are unwarranted, but when a topic is as controversial as this one is, then it obviously isn't just some random person complaining.
Did you even read what he said? Whining for a nerf is bending over, adapting and overcoming is the opposite of that. Also, the only reason this is so controversial is because all players tend to copy the same build and then expect it to work all the time against anything. It takes creative minds like TLO's to find counterbuilds that defy the popular playing trends.
The sole reason man as a species dominates all live on Earth is because of its creative adaptability, use it 
|
I believe that mech is a strong (the strongest imo) choice agianst both Protoss and Zerg, (somewhat stronger against zerg until broodlord/corruptor) but is not overpowered. Each race has plenty of ways to counter it (ironically terran has the best tools to beat hellion/tank, in marauder/thor/banshee) and there is still a minimum amount of skill and knowledge required to actually play mech correctly (sweet spots on maps, how fast and where to push so that you dont get an expo cut off and countered, etc).
|
To me zerg doesn't feel creative at all as much as it feels like just timing everything correctly as far as droning and transitioning goes. Blizzard has already said they like the game the way it is now and they won't change much next phase and if that's true I'm probably switching to terran because I do feel like I can be more creative when playing terran.
|
|
|
Terran mech is tough to beat; no doubt about that. However, the difficulty lies more in the fact that unlike most strategies 1a'ing into the Terran mech is suicide. I play Zerg so I do know what it's like to be on the receiving end.
Terran starts approaching my base? I take half my force and overlord drop into his base. Delay him long enough and you hide ultras in ovies which you then drop on his mech. Yeah he has vikings and thors so you either a) send ling/roach/hydra to attract attention or b) you send a bunch of empty overlords ahead of the filled ones, or c) do both.
Most games I lose is because of macro. Both zerg and protoss have mobility, terran does not, so abuse the hell out of it.
expand expand expand, and when he moves out wreck his base. Sure its a risk, he might roll you but with enough hatcheries/money u can replenish fast enough.
|
Blizzard has already said they like the game the way it is now and they won't change much next phase and if that's true I'm probably switching to terran because I do feel like I can be more creative when playing terran. Just say: " I want wins!" instead of talking about creativity...
My theory is that they intentionally made terran the strongest race right now, having in mind that a majority of new players will favor Terran after playing through the campaign, therefore they'll have an easier start into the multiplayer. It's pretty intuitive to build up a defensive position and the first thing every nooby wants to try, are tanksüüü followed by that Gundam/Transformer unit they incidentally added...
|
On June 08 2010 13:54 Turbo.Tactics wrote:Show nested quote +Blizzard has already said they like the game the way it is now and they won't change much next phase and if that's true I'm probably switching to terran because I do feel like I can be more creative when playing terran. Just say: " I want wins!" instead of talking about creativity... My theory is that they intentionally made terran the strongest race right now, having in mind that a majority of new players will favor Terran after playing through the campaign, therefore they'll have an easier start into the multiplayer. It's pretty intuitive to build up a defensive position and the first thing every nooby wants to try, are tanksüüü followed by that Gundam/Transformer unit they incidentally added...
I love it how all these conspiracy theories come out as soon as one thing is a bit overpowered in one patch. Blizzard already nerfed mech, they obviously know what they're doing, they will nerf it again if it's still too good, it's better they do it in small increments rather than one massive nerf so they don't overdo it.
|
I think the question isn't whether Terran mech is op or not, as those numbers can be adjusted. It's that terran mech is so EASY to play. Think in BW where Terran mech is good, it still requires superb vulture micro to make the most out of it.
The Siege Tank now doesn't overkill, basically simplifying the units quite a bit. The Hellion requires some micro but not nearly the level of vulture. And finally the Thor is the ultimate A move unit. Just send him into battle for forget.
|
well mnm/mauraders are horrible vs infestors so i dont see how terran can ever win without a strong mech
|
Platinum terran player on US server here. Big Walls o' Text incoming, but I think a lot of Zerg players will benefit from what I have to say. I've read this entire thread and while I acknowledge that mech is very powerful, I'd like to explain what I think Zerg players should be doing against a turtle-mech terran.
In my experience, the most successful Zerg players typically will 2 base muta harass against terran prior to taking their third base and proceeding to a Lair-tech ground army followed by Hive-tech corruptor/broodlord/hydra or corruptor/broodlord/ling. Zerg players that skip the harass phase with mutas are usually much less successful against my mech build. Let me elaborate.
Muta harass delays tank production by forcing earlier production of thors and making the terran waste minerals on turrets. Thors will, of course, be a normal part of any terran mech army for their anti-air, but if the zerg player can force the terran to blow his gas on 2-3 thors at around the same time terran is just beginning to try to saturate his natural, it can really assist the zerg in keeping the tank count low and extending his economic lead over the terran. The terran can't usually move out at this time because as long as the zerg player is smart with his mutalisks the terran will be forced to babysit his mineral line at his main and his natural and play defense with the slow thors or invest in turrets.
Note that the muta harass is key. Doing damage to SCVs and supply depots is basically a huge bonus. Regardless of actually damaging the terran workers, the terran will now need to account for the mutalisks, which is, by default, an economic hit on his tank production.
Around the same time, zerg should be working towards taking map control/spreading creep while saturating their third. The next critical step that I think can really have a huge impact on the matchup is whether the zerg player can successfully keep the terran player on 4 geysers or at least seriously delay the terran taking his second expanison while the zerg is teching to corruptor/broodlord.
A control group of about 16-20 hydras is probably most useful at this time. This force should obviously never fully engage the terran at his chokepoint. It's really meant to delay the terran and designed as a "show " of hydra-tech to the terran while he wastes gas on establishing that critical mass of siege tanks that crushes hydralisks. Keep in mind that the terran has to respect your ground army and won't automatically assume you are teching to greater spire provided you have an active force that you are using to selectively harass him.
Corruptor/Brood Lord/Hydra, or alternatively Corruptor/Brood Lord/Crackling if hellions are lacking, is a really successful endgame combo to the terran mechball. Adjust the ground unit composition based on the tank count. It's very frustrating trying to target brood lords with thors. Broodlords have range 9.5 to the thors 9 while broodlings obstruct the thors movement. If the tanks are not micro'd well, the splash on the broodlings will damage the thors. If the tanks are unsieged then go balls to the mechwall with your ground forces. After the first battle, zerg should be able to incur enough damage such that the factory losses are too much for the terran to recoup, and the zerg can transition appropriately to a mop-up force.
Abuse the timing windows at your disposal as zerg. Don't allow the terran to turtle comfortably. Starve the terran for gas or force him to spread himself thin. Think of creative ways you can abuse the terran's attempt to easily take and protect his third base on maps like Steppes of War or Kulas Ravine.
One more note, if you are letting a terran get supply maxed off of two bases then I suspect your macro is too slow. It takes a while to hit the supply max with a decent unit composition off of 2 bases due lack of gas, so these slow terrans should get abused by a zerg player that knows when to harass and when to power drones. Also, sack overlords liberally to keep an eye on weird techswitches to banshees or infantry, all-in troop movements, or just to get a sense of the terran's unit composition and economy until you are sure you have the advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
