|
On June 12 2010 01:39 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 22:27 n3mo wrote:On June 11 2010 06:47 MIKE HUTN EASY wrote:
I agree its completely beatable (terran mech) and all ur solutions make perfect sense except one HUGE problem, to do army drops, vortex', splitting army, burrowing half, doing storms and fungals, all work but it requires an insane amount of micro while the terran just A-moves and seiges thats why its imba, the micro and the fact that u need a perfect unit composition and placement to beat as opposed to just A-moving i seem to recall that in scbw, terran was considered the most apm intensive race, whether going bio or mech. Who gives a flying fuk? Niether SC1 or APM is relevant in this discussion.
people were arguing that terran mech is imba because its 'easy', requiring a simple a-move and siege, i.e. that terran mech is ridiculously powerful and easy to do, while countering it is highly micro-intensive.
my point is that the basic mechanics of mech haven't changed since scbw (of course units and the ai are different), and so since its generally accepted that scbw mech takes a hell of a lot of practice and apm to do well, sc2 mech certainly isn't easy to do well.
|
On June 12 2010 23:24 Graven wrote:
This debate is beyond frustrating. Tanks HARD counter ALL ground units in the game. It's not balanced and it's not debatable. Even if air units were a good counter, which they often aren't, it still wouldn't prove anything. The idea that Terran can mass 20 of one unit and make all opposing ground units worthless is ridiculous. It'd be the equivalent of like 25 Hydras hard countering 200/200 Carriers. I can't fathom the mindset of people who truthfully believe Terran mech is balanced right now. You'd have to be playing a different game.
Have you used patch 14 ultras with infestor and crackling support? I bet most of you dont..
|
the reason why people don't use motherships is because its arduous to get there. you need a stargate and fleet beacon plus it takes like a 160s to pop out. might as well get phoenixes to lift the tanks.
|
Even if people get mothership how does that change anything. All the enemy can see is the mothership beacause your whole army is cloaked which means that the mothership will be focused and die very quickly
|
On June 12 2010 17:29 tzenes wrote:
Patch 11:
Siege Mode splash damage now originates from the center of the target, rather than the impact location near the unit in order to maintain more reliable splash damage.
There were a number of changes before patch 11 that directly improved Mech:
Patch 8 decreased build times for tanks and thors
Patch 7 gave thors splash
Patch 6 decreased factory and techlab cost
.
TERRAN
* Thor
o Radius decreased from 1.375 to 0.8125.
o Model size reduced to match new radius.
that is what helped the thor
Siege Tank
* Life increased from 150 to 160.
in patch 11 this change also happened in addition to the previous changes is what made mech usable.
THe more reliable splash is irrelevant because it only helps in the initial push once the enemy starts pouring in your attacking in the middle and regardless of where splash hits its gonna do the same damage.
(of course it also helps a little once the opponents army is almost defeated)
|
As a Terran player, whilst I don't think that Terran mech is imbalanced I do think that bad siege tank placement should be able to be punished.
Every time I go mech, I place my tanks the exact way I would in SC:BW; I try to minimise overkill, I try to make sure that drops on top of my tanks are ineffective due to them being spread out etc. However, most of this is completely pointless and merely habits I picked up from SC1. I feel that every Terran player should be doing these things anyway, and if not they should be able to be punished for it.
The lack of overkill is, for lack of a better word, bad. It encourages lazy play by the Terran player as they don't have to actually try to use their tanks properly.
Stuff like:
This debate is beyond frustrating. Tanks HARD counter ALL ground units in the game. It's not balanced and it's not debatable. Even if air units were a good counter, which they often aren't, it still wouldn't prove anything. The idea that Terran can mass 20 of one unit and make all opposing ground units worthless is ridiculous. It'd be the equivalent of like 25 Hydras hard countering 200/200 Carriers. I can't fathom the mindset of people who truthfully believe Terran mech is balanced right now. You'd have to be playing a different game.
Is completely idiotic though.
|
On June 13 2010 01:06 terranghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2010 17:29 tzenes wrote:
Patch 11:
Siege Mode splash damage now originates from the center of the target, rather than the impact location near the unit in order to maintain more reliable splash damage.
There were a number of changes before patch 11 that directly improved Mech:
Patch 8 decreased build times for tanks and thors
Patch 7 gave thors splash
Patch 6 decreased factory and techlab cost
. TERRAN * Thor o Radius decreased from 1.375 to 0.8125. o Model size reduced to match new radius. that is what helped the thor Siege Tank * Life increased from 150 to 160. in patch 11 this change also happened in addition to the previous changes is what made mech usable. THe more reliable splash is irrelevant because it only helps in the initial push once the enemy starts pouring in your attacking in the middle and regardless of where splash hits its gonna do the same damage. (of course it also helps a little once the opponents army is almost defeated)
As to your first point, I agree an extra 10 HP helped (I think thor change in size was a buff and a nerf, based on the SCV use, but probably more of the former), but its really the change to splash that changed it.
I'm not sure if you've ever suicided 50 Hydra into a tank line (I have), but the tanks naturally target the leading Hydra. Since Hydra aren't particularly fast, the target tends to consistently remain the leading line of Hydra. Pre-patch 11, this meant that my hydra army would close ground (albeit at seriously losses) and eventually kill a couple tanks. Post-patch 11, this was no longer the case. As targeting the leading line became more effective I started to notice that my Hydra line would "break" at a certain distance away from the tank line (usually out of range). You'll notice the same effect with Roaches, though their higher hp will get them closer.
You argue that the splash will start targeting the middle. That's actually not desirable behavior. If the splash only targets the middle then those first lines will start to get in range and do damage. However, if the splash continually targets the leading line, then the tanks can stay "safe."
I made a quick example of this here: [url blocked]
Send the hydras up the ramp into the natural and watch how the tank shots kill the outer 2-3 hydras, but the inner ones stay intact. Pre-patch 11, it would have been the outer 1-2, thus you can see the increase in lethality.
You'll also notice that the hydras die on the bottom side much quicker as that is the first side to come in range. Further evidence that the tanks choose the closest target.
|
even so i believe changing the splash back to what i used to be and keeping all the other siege tank buffs
build time health and the ability to get the tech for them faster.
the tanks would still operate just fine.
I posted this before but I think making tanks be forced to shoot if something came into their range would fix alot they still wouldnt overkill however it would allow people to force tanks to shoot on a distraction force and would punish bad tank placement.
|
On June 13 2010 01:16 Jimmeh wrote:As a Terran player, whilst I don't think that Terran mech is imbalanced I do think that bad siege tank placement should be able to be punished. Every time I go mech, I place my tanks the exact way I would in SC:BW; I try to minimise overkill, I try to make sure that drops on top of my tanks are ineffective due to them being spread out etc. However, most of this is completely pointless and merely habits I picked up from SC1. I feel that every Terran player should be doing these things anyway, and if not they should be able to be punished for it. The lack of overkill is, for lack of a better word, bad. It encourages lazy play by the Terran player as they don't have to actually try to use their tanks properly. Stuff like: Show nested quote +This debate is beyond frustrating. Tanks HARD counter ALL ground units in the game. It's not balanced and it's not debatable. Even if air units were a good counter, which they often aren't, it still wouldn't prove anything. The idea that Terran can mass 20 of one unit and make all opposing ground units worthless is ridiculous. It'd be the equivalent of like 25 Hydras hard countering 200/200 Carriers. I can't fathom the mindset of people who truthfully believe Terran mech is balanced right now. You'd have to be playing a different game. Is completely idiotic though.
Your suggested change won't change balance where it matters: high level play. Giving noob Silver level Terran more of a challenge is irrelevant. You're completely idiotic. (see wut I did there?)
|
On June 13 2010 00:08 Brokengamer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2010 23:24 Graven wrote:
This debate is beyond frustrating. Tanks HARD counter ALL ground units in the game. It's not balanced and it's not debatable. Even if air units were a good counter, which they often aren't, it still wouldn't prove anything. The idea that Terran can mass 20 of one unit and make all opposing ground units worthless is ridiculous. It'd be the equivalent of like 25 Hydras hard countering 200/200 Carriers. I can't fathom the mindset of people who truthfully believe Terran mech is balanced right now. You'd have to be playing a different game. Have you used patch 14 ultras with infestor and crackling support? I bet most of you dont..
Sure I do. I use Ultra's all the time against Terran. No matter how you slice it, you can't face a Terran head-on at that point in the game. What Terran have now been able to do is solidify everywhere else enough to prevent harass on many maps -- two or three sentry towers give vision almost everywhere. Combined with Vikings and Turrets, surprise attacks become impossible on many maps.
I'm willing to make this debate about map balance to be honest. If all maps were like Metalopolis, then Terran mech wouldn't be OP. As it is, Terran mech either needs to be nerfed or several maps need to be removed from the ladder.
|
On June 12 2010 23:39 n3mo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2010 01:39 Graven wrote:On June 11 2010 22:27 n3mo wrote:On June 11 2010 06:47 MIKE HUTN EASY wrote:
I agree its completely beatable (terran mech) and all ur solutions make perfect sense except one HUGE problem, to do army drops, vortex', splitting army, burrowing half, doing storms and fungals, all work but it requires an insane amount of micro while the terran just A-moves and seiges thats why its imba, the micro and the fact that u need a perfect unit composition and placement to beat as opposed to just A-moving i seem to recall that in scbw, terran was considered the most apm intensive race, whether going bio or mech. Who gives a flying fuk? Niether SC1 or APM is relevant in this discussion. people were arguing that terran mech is imba because its 'easy', requiring a simple a-move and siege, i.e. that terran mech is ridiculously powerful and easy to do, while countering it is highly micro-intensive. my point is that the basic mechanics of mech haven't changed since scbw (of course units and the ai are different), and so since its generally accepted that scbw mech takes a hell of a lot of practice and apm to do well, sc2 mech certainly isn't easy to do well.
But the units, AI and maps being different is EVERYTHING, haha. I haven't played BW in a long time, but when I did play, not once did I ever even think about labeling tanks imbalanced. The combination of changes in SC2 have made the unit OP in a variety of different settings. The fact that we're even debating this for 20+ pages shows something is off...there's never a case of all smoke and no fire in situations like this. Until Terran players accept the reality and begin brainstorming a solution along with everyone else, we're stuck with this petty bickering.
|
On June 12 2010 21:34 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2010 17:27 cryostasis wrote:
Even if Terran does have the best "final army" as you said, which is debatable, it's up to Zerg not to let Terran get that army. That's not an answer. No race should ever have an "I win" scenario -- such a scenario is the exact definition of imbalance. And as far as "final" armies go, it's not remotely debatable. It's counter-intuative for the race with the best turtle ability and the most versatility to also have an unbeatable final army. Those factors force opposing races to severely alter their play, creating mistakes. It's an inherent advantage built in for Terran right now.
It is an answer, but it was obviously over your head. You clearly lack understanding of the importance of timing and the ebb and flow of starcraft games. I don't know what type of scenario you are envisioning where the Zerg player leaves the Terran player alone for a half hour while he builds this "I win" army off of 2 bases. Are you kidding me? I'm laughing thinking about it. Seriously, have you even used mutalisks? Ever?
Explain how a Zerg player playing against a Terran player who is turtling has a disadvantage, on say, Metalopolis. In your scenario where the Terran is turtling, a good Zerg player should have control over the entire map and all of its resources, possibly doubling his opponents worker count entering midgame. A good Zerg player will be relentlessly spreading creep all over the map right up to the gate of the Terran to take advantage of the speed bonus. A good Zerg player will have control of the skies with mutas and overlord placement. Now explain to me how a Terran player who is turtling and slowly building a 200/200 final army off of his main and natural is going to be in a better position than a Zerg player who has all of the maps resources. Don't just say: "Well, yeah, but the Terran army is unstoppable!!!11" Clearly, this isn't the case.
Your continuing comments about an unbeatable "I win" final army are laughable when we have seen examples in, you know, actual replays, of Zerg players crushing mech Terrans.
PS - Did you watch TLO vs Jinro yet? Probably not.
http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/3732380/
|
On June 13 2010 00:08 Brokengamer wrote:Have you used patch 14 ultras with infestor and crackling support? I bet most of you dont..
Yes because Ultralisks are cost effective and won't get mowed down by Marauders...
|
On June 13 2010 06:53 cryostasis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2010 21:34 Graven wrote:On June 12 2010 17:27 cryostasis wrote:
Even if Terran does have the best "final army" as you said, which is debatable, it's up to Zerg not to let Terran get that army. That's not an answer. No race should ever have an "I win" scenario -- such a scenario is the exact definition of imbalance. And as far as "final" armies go, it's not remotely debatable. It's counter-intuative for the race with the best turtle ability and the most versatility to also have an unbeatable final army. Those factors force opposing races to severely alter their play, creating mistakes. It's an inherent advantage built in for Terran right now. Explain how a Zerg player playing against a Terran player who is turtling has a disadvantage, on say, Metalopolis.
I stopped reading there. You picked one of the few maps that Terran don't have an advantage over Zerg, lol. I don't doubt what followed was inspirational and brilliant writing though, so if you can replace that first sentence with, I dunno...Steppes of War...and still use the rest of the paragraph accurately, I'll happily read it next time. If not, thanks for playing.
|
On June 13 2010 06:55 xenocide.psv wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 00:08 Brokengamer wrote:Have you used patch 14 ultras with infestor and crackling support? I bet most of you dont.. Yes because Ultralisks are cost effective and won't get mowed down by Marauders...
Switch back to air. Also, how did the terran get enough barracks to make sufficient Marauders to stop this attack?
|
On June 13 2010 06:56 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:53 cryostasis wrote:On June 12 2010 21:34 Graven wrote:On June 12 2010 17:27 cryostasis wrote:
Even if Terran does have the best "final army" as you said, which is debatable, it's up to Zerg not to let Terran get that army. That's not an answer. No race should ever have an "I win" scenario -- such a scenario is the exact definition of imbalance. And as far as "final" armies go, it's not remotely debatable. It's counter-intuative for the race with the best turtle ability and the most versatility to also have an unbeatable final army. Those factors force opposing races to severely alter their play, creating mistakes. It's an inherent advantage built in for Terran right now. Explain how a Zerg player playing against a Terran player who is turtling has a disadvantage, on say, Metalopolis. I stopped reading there. You picked one of the few maps that Terran don't have an advantage over Zerg, lol. I don't doubt what followed was inspirational and brilliant writing though, so if you can replace that first sentence with, I dunno...Steppes of War...and still use the rest of the paragraph accurately, I'll happily read it next time. If not, thanks for playing.
Steppes of War would work fine actually. Terran still wouldn't be able to take his third that easily with proper harassment. Continue reading.
EDIT: Actually, you know what? Don't even bother. You're clearly over your head in this argument. Don't let the truth get in the way of your childish bitching.
2nd EDIT: I picked Metalopolis on purpose. I thought Terran was unstoppable no matter what? So map design actually plays a role in the matchup? Who knew?
|
I'm supporting cryostatis in this thread. Besides, this should have been closed after the damage nerf to tanks anyway, and the core issue was never the actual stats of units, but map design on maps like steppes of war that prevents zerg from getting more than 1/2 the bases and basically FORCES Z to split the map at best.
If you notice brood war games, zerg can usually take a 3rd base much earlier than the terran and protect it with 2 lurkers. Because of the absence of lurkers, the map design must allow for such a 3rd base for zerg that is easily defensible without a unit that requires detection.
Metalopolis allows for this with taking a base that's really far from the terran, thus making it extremely hard for a turtling player to destroy it without leaving the natural undefended.
Another issue that all the zergs posting one-liners seem to miss is that you cannot be passive with zerg and you simply cannot wait until there's a critical mass of tank/viking on the map. As the metagame progresses, there will be strategies developed that can severely hurt the terran before midgame and allow zerg to get the uncontested 3rd.
|
On June 13 2010 06:59 cryostasis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 06:56 Graven wrote:On June 13 2010 06:53 cryostasis wrote:On June 12 2010 21:34 Graven wrote:On June 12 2010 17:27 cryostasis wrote:
Even if Terran does have the best "final army" as you said, which is debatable, it's up to Zerg not to let Terran get that army. That's not an answer. No race should ever have an "I win" scenario -- such a scenario is the exact definition of imbalance. And as far as "final" armies go, it's not remotely debatable. It's counter-intuative for the race with the best turtle ability and the most versatility to also have an unbeatable final army. Those factors force opposing races to severely alter their play, creating mistakes. It's an inherent advantage built in for Terran right now. Explain how a Zerg player playing against a Terran player who is turtling has a disadvantage, on say, Metalopolis. I stopped reading there. You picked one of the few maps that Terran don't have an advantage over Zerg, lol. I don't doubt what followed was inspirational and brilliant writing though, so if you can replace that first sentence with, I dunno...Steppes of War...and still use the rest of the paragraph accurately, I'll happily read it next time. If not, thanks for playing. Steppes of War would work fine actually. Terran still wouldn't be able to take his third that easily with proper harassment. Continue reading. EDIT: Actually, you know what? Don't even bother. You're clearly over your head in this argument. Don't let the truth get in the way of your childish bitching. 2nd EDIT: I picked Metalopolis on purpose. I thought Terran was unstoppable no matter what? So map design actually plays a role in the matchup? Who knew?
If you read my posts, you would have known. Map imbalance is an equal issue to mech imbalance right now. Logically, if one strat for one race is causing multiple map issues, the race is adjusted, but it'd work just as well if several maps were removed from ladder play (again, if you read my posts, we wouldn't be moving in circles).
|
On June 13 2010 06:55 xenocide.psv wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 00:08 Brokengamer wrote:Have you used patch 14 ultras with infestor and crackling support? I bet most of you dont.. Yes because Ultralisks are cost effective and won't get mowed down by Marauders...
If you cant beat marauders with infestor and crackling support then you must be a bad player.. And patch 14 ultras are good against marauders as long you got a fungal growth on them. Geez
This build isn't about harrasment either. It can face T mech head on. On the Jinro vs TLO game I dont why TLO have to resort to such guerilla tactics but that might because jinro was turtling too much.. I agree that some maps are just favored against terran.. The more cliffs and chokes the more powerful T mech is.. and even ultra-infestor can only handle T mech in an open field but at least you can contain them.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
Good god. Why is this thread open.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
