EPTWhy the Terran problems are not an imbalance issue - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12041 Posts
auto-repair really have no place in the game at all. Err, why? Shields auto heal, zerg units autoheal, why shouldn't terran be able to auto repair their units and structures? Also, SCVs usually bug out if there's more than one thing nearby that needs repairing, like if SCVs take damage when they're repairing something, the other SCVs try and repair that SCV. Also, SCVs die so fast that as long as they fix the targeting priority for units, the thor problem won't be a problem anymore. EDIT: Also the point about making drop an upgrade is just silly. Why not then make Warp Prism drop/warp in mechanics both upgrades too? I'd say if anything, you'd make the heal an upgrade because if you're going mech you really will never use the healing capabilities of the dropship. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On September 10 2010 16:48 link0 wrote: And 55 less hp, no shield regen, slower movement speed, and can't shoot air. Otherwise, yea, the same unit. And can be healed by medivacs, takes less place inside a dropship, kills buildings 30 times faster... | ||
|
Consummate
Australia191 Posts
I agree that the tech lab is flawed with how it allows so many new units to be built while giving all the crucial upgrades too. Medivacs requiring an upgrade before being able to drop units is also a great idea. SCVs being a higher priority when repairing is also good. Bunker idea is good too. Marauders however need an adjustment against Protoss for reasons everyone knows about. | ||
|
Parodoxx
United States549 Posts
| ||
|
Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo
Germany2959 Posts
I know you watch a lot pro replays but you're only very low Diamond yourself if I'm not mistaken (saw you rank 99 Diamond or so when casting). If you think these are really all the issues and there's no imbalance... Let's just say I heavily disagree with all your posts ;f | ||
|
Omar91
Angola620 Posts
| ||
|
vrok
Sweden2541 Posts
On September 10 2010 16:59 Qikz wrote: Err, why? Shields auto heal, zerg units autoheal, why shouldn't terran be able to auto repair their units and structures? Also, SCVs usually bug out if there's more than one thing nearby that needs repairing, like if SCVs take damage when they're repairing something, the other SCVs try and repair that SCV. Medivacs auto-heal... Is that not enough for you? Terran needs auto-heal for mech/buildings too? And comparing with zerg regeneration is just LOL, completely unrelated. If you were talking about roach burrow heal you might have a point, but hey that actually requires an action and isn't automatic so never mind. Terran shouldn't be able to auto-repair because repairing something should be an action that requires your attention so you have to, you know, actually multitask, one of the most important skills a Starcraft game should require. It's part of the immobility of mech. It's not like you can't waypoint repair anyway if you really suck at multitasking. The repair behavior you're describing is not a bug, and only further shows why auto-repair should not be in the game. | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
The terran is an immobile race and doing it more immobile and forcing an upgrade to give some mobility is not the way to go. | ||
|
Omar91
Angola620 Posts
On September 10 2010 17:15 vrok wrote: Medivacs auto-heal... Is that not enough for you? Terran needs auto-heal for mech/buildings too? And comparing with zerg regeneration is just LOL, completely unrelated. If you were talking about roach burrow heal you might have a point, but hey that actually requires an action and isn't automatic so never mind. Terran shouldn't be able to auto-repair because repairing something should be an action that requires your attention so you have to, you know, actually multitask, one of the most important skills a Starcraft game should require. It's part of the immobility of mech. It's not like you can't waypoint repair anyway if you really suck at multitasking. The repair behavior you're describing is not a bug, and only further shows why auto-repair should not be in the game. So your problem isn't with Auto-Repair, it's with auto-casting ? Yeah I think It should be taken out of the game probably. | ||
|
Teeny
Austria885 Posts
Medivacs and sensor towers are kinda OP right now and in my opinion and i hope they will look at this. | ||
|
x7i
United Kingdom122 Posts
oh and there remains issue of dragoons with stim... and slowing attack... just cheaper and half the size. | ||
|
Bair
United States698 Posts
On September 10 2010 17:14 Omar91 wrote: So you are saying that Blizzard will have to completely change Terran, so that the other races don't QQ as much ? Or a change needs to be made with zerg/protoss so they are as well designed and synergetic as terran currently is. Protoss is pretty good but zerg just feels like they took a ton of good ideas and threw them together, then nerfed them because they were too good, but did so in a way that lacked foresight or common sense. | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
On September 10 2010 10:01 EvasivE wrote: with the insane amount of options and most terran players very rare deviation from the norm is what makes people not care for or respect terran players. Such a shitty argument. Why should terran players have to so goddamn innovative to get the same respect as the run of the mill 4 gater and fast hatch zerg? | ||
|
Wargizmo
Australia1237 Posts
On September 10 2010 15:27 Floophead_III wrote: Easy way to fix terran: Marauders no longer have stim. Done. The rest of the game can be rebalanced slightly around that. Maybe not remove stim but I do think they should lose 25 hp instead of 20 to bring it in line with the marine (lose 1/5 of hitpoints) BTW has anyone noticed that marauders are the ONLY unit that's actually better in multi player than in the campaign. | ||
|
Raelcun
United States3747 Posts
So heres a few general responses @Rabiator and others, Rabiator especially who likes to call me biased in every thread I make. I am a commentator when I talk about game balance I'm not interested from a personal sense seeing as I have played barely 30 ladder games in almost 2 months with less than that in all of phase 2. I want to see this game succeed and I have seen other good games fail due to poor reaction to base mechanics being off. If Blizzard continues to just tweak the small unimportant numbers like attack damage, build time by small amounts I doubt the real problems are going to get fixed. @Random people bitching about Medivac drops, talking about how much Medivacs cost you to tech to is unrelated. This is a cost you are going to eat in your build orders anyways because a bio ball in the midgame without Medivacs is just plain stupid. The main issue is that you do not have to make a decision to go for drops because the ability to heal is required and the decision is made for you by the game. Blizzard loves to go on about making decisions well how about adding another one in relation to Medivacs hmm? Too lazy to respond to the rest of the nonsense going on here. Kind of sickening that the general response on battle.net was better than on TL. | ||
|
hdkhang
Australia183 Posts
On September 10 2010 16:25 Rabiator wrote: You are not including one thing in your car analogy: Fuel efficiency. The allrounder probably has the lowest fuel consumption and it would win against both others in a race designed to challenge that feature of the cars. All I want to say is: Analogies only work so far ... please contradict my reasoning for "bigger maps = Zerg maps" [or rather "tiny Blizzard maps screw Zerg"] directly. Thank you in advance. The response to your link to the data was that I had no issue with the data, the problem I had was your overly simplistic conclusion from the data (which by the way is wrong and I'll get to that later). The second portion of my post regarding the car analogy was a means to show you the general flaw in designing a map around the existing stengths and weaknesses of the races. I don't think the maps are good, but I don't think fixing them will fix the matchups either. As for your "fuel efficiency" rebuttal, that's not part of the simplified analogy, or do you really want to get into the whole, tires tread being worn out, ease with which a driver can master the car, and all other manner of intricacies. The point of an analogy is not to have a 100% like for like scenario, it is simply a means of making it easier to get a point across... to be honest I really hate hate hate analogies, but a lot of people seem to like them and so I sometimes use them. In any case, if you are referring to fuel efficiency as a means for drawing some kind of comparison to mineral/gas efficiency it is really a non issue. The point of a race is to win, just as it is the point of a game. If I expend more minerals/gas to win, I don't have a problem with that so long as the ease with which I can acquire the additional minerals/gas can in some way offset that. Just like I don't care about fuel efficiency in a race if my car has enough fuel to win the race via a larger fuel tank. As to your supposed data supporting your claim that balance is a largely map based issue, consider that the data does not reveal any details as to the individual matchups themselves. I.e. a protoss win is a protoss win, regardless of whether it is against a terran, zerg or another protoss opponent. The small variances between the wins for each race on each map can be influenced by FOTW/M etc. You would never expect the maps to ever have a 50% chance of winning (not least due to this being a sample and not the entire population) since I doubt the AMM will match opponents based on which map they have success in in order to even it out. If you still don't see how your conclusion is an oversimplification, I will explain in detail further, but as it stands, you cannot draw the conclusion you have made based on the data you supplied. | ||
|
sevink
United States1 Post
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Raelcun
United States3747 Posts
On September 10 2010 17:38 sevink wrote: Anyone else see this? http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/566438705 supposedly its the newest internal build. A friend just sent a link, check out the Zerg buffs, really interesting. Zerg Queen • Spawn larva energy cost decreased from 25 to 20. • New ability: Nest- binds Queen to targeted Hatchery, casting spawn larva every 50 seconds. Cannot attack or use abilities while nested. Same fake notes with some of the already confirmed changes mixed in to make them seem more believable. | ||
|
ShadowIord
Spain32 Posts
On September 10 2010 10:28 KhAlleB wrote: yea true 200min for a moving pylon who can power up max of 2 canon explain his low hp, you forgot the 1 armor tho, how many time we see a medivac get out when if it was a warp prisme he would be dead 2 time ? i think that would not be that bad to remove the 1 armor You forgot the fact that you can warp units inside, so u pay 200min for a movile pylon who can power u 2 cannons (or maybe more, i never try it), who transport units and who can warp units as example, DT or HT, so..... we pay 100/100 (I shall remember u than gas is more valeable than min) for a heal transport. I think is fine as it is. I do not agree with a Tech lab nerf, we have to pay for the addon for each building, which is a 50/25 (or 50/50) extra cost. Zerg = 1 S. pool = 250 min (extra worker) = ?¿?¿ lings Toss = 4 gates = 600 min = 4 gate units (mid-late game means ANY gate unit). Terran = 4 Racks = 600 min = 4 marines Terran = 4 Racks + 4 Tech labs = 800/100 4 racks units Apply that to factories and space ports I think is fine as it is. But i must also aggre that Sensor towers shall have a minor nerf, maybe small area o a directional scan, price is ok. Zergs can use overlords "almost" as sensor towers and there is no complain -_- | ||
| ||
