Why the Terran problems are not an imbalance issue - Page 12

On September 10 2010 17:33 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
I would just like to point out that the thread on battle.net forums has more positive responses and reasonable discussion going on than in here. Started out well on this thread but now it's a bunch of you guys going off on completely unrelated topics -.-

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.

On September 10 2010 18:24 sleepingdog wrote:
another thing I forgot to mention:

there are currently two units that kinda screw up the concept of terran; the reaper and the hellion; terran were originally designed to be a strong but kinda immobile race; in BW if they wanted to harass, they had to do it with high, high micro (vulture); now the reaper and the hellion allow for a really "easy" harassment that even a bad player can do somewhat successfully - critically, neither requires an upgrade for higher speed; I never understood why reapers were given to terran in the first place; if you think about it, if you took away the whole reaper-unit terran wouldn't suffer in any matchup - in TvZ many Ts go for early hellions anyway; in TvP reapers are completely denied by an early stalker

On September 10 2010 18:10 Rabiator wrote:

I am not calling you biased, but every one of your threads comes to the same and totally wrong conclusion: Terran is IMBA. Maybe you could try and look at it from a different point of view: Zerg are SCREWED (because Protoss do not whine about Terrans, so Terrans arent IMBA actually).

The big question then becomes: Why are Zerg screwed? If you look at the big picture you will notice that any mid-to-late game fight where the Zerg has had time to get a good economy can actually go either way depending on the circumstances. So why are Zerg screwed? Its because they are the slowest race to get their engine rolling, but once it does it is actually very powerful. The reason why Zerg lose easily and fast to Terrans is the harrass by Reapers, Hellions and Banshees. Eliminate the harrass and you give the Zerg the time to prepare, very easy IMO. There are obviously two ways of doint it: a. larger maps or b. nerf the building times.

The second part of my "complaints" with the current situation is that the maps dont allow the Zerg to use their full potential in a battle due to tiny battlefields on constricting maps [of which Incineration Zone was the pinnacle].

Please, Raelcun, try to argue with my reasoning instead of talking about calling you "one sided", which the list of your "Terran is IMBA because ..." threads clearly supports. Why are the units or the buildings creating imbalance and not the map size? I know you had a thread about the maps too, BUT you only concerned yourself with the map features which do not matter for the early harrassment. Rush (and thus scouting) distance does however. Especially on the 4-player maps Lost Temple and Metalopolis the spawn positions can have a HUGE impact on the game because they are soo different. So what is wrong with my arguments?

P.S.: The BIG problem will not get fixed by Blizzard, because everyone is keeping on saying that "Terrans are OP" instead of saying "the current maps hurt Zerg too much due to the size". I would totally sign any petition saying that.

On September 10 2010 13:43 Rabiator wrote:
Yet another "ohh Terran is IMBA" thread in Raelcuns series. Its the frigging MAP SIZE which give Zerg a hard time and NOT one of the units or abilities or costs of Terran units or buildings. Even Tasteless and Artosis talk about "oh there was a Protoss autumn map season in BW" and say that this has existed in BW already; sadly they FAIL at coming to the conclusion that its the same for SC2 and keep on whining about Terrans being IMBA just like Raelcun here.

There are two things which "nerf the Zerg" and both are caused by tiny maps from Blizzard:

1. Early rushes cause havoc in the economy of the Zerg. With larger maps (or at least starting locations which are further apart) that would not be a problem, not even a Protoss proxy Gate rush, because the Probe needs to travel as well.
   
2. Immobility of Terran (and Protoss) armies can NOT be exploited by going around it, because there are too often only one or two close pathways to get from one base to the other. Prime examples are Steppes of War, Metalopolis and Kulas Ravine. No space to surround an enemy in the middle means any mobility advantage is impossible to use. A much better example of a map is Delta Quadrant, but that one has other problems.

Please Raelcun ... dont try to overanalyze the game and try to find "the solution" in some detail. The real problem is much larger than units or buildings (but sadly not large enough). I hope the very rare words of wisdom from Tastosis help convincing you.

On August 03 2010 10:12 Rabiator wrote:

ROFL. Really! Trying to put the blame on something - ONE thing - other than the limited playing skills (adaptability / flexibility) of the players? Apparently whining about the racial balance is out and whining about the maps is in now, so lets focus on that thing now, eh? Not a good idea! You need to look at the whole picture and not one color / corner of it to be able to judge it. Its not that playing Terran is easy and gives you an auto-win button.

The whole following arguments really sound like you think that Terran is only one strategy and that maps designed in different ways will stop benefitting Terran in general. Well that is wrong in so many ways as I will try to show below. More or less the whole OP is a disguised "Terran is OP" thread again, but the arguments have shifted from the units to the maps and still are one-sided. Just for reference here are the other threads "in the series":
How to fix TvZ Mech
Why Zerg is good

On June 22 2010 23:18 Rabiator wrote:
The whole "balance" issue has much to do with the maps. On some maps some tactics by some races will work better than on other maps, but the opponent must realize this and change accordingly.

If on map A the Terran can have his sieged tanks on lots of high grounds with a good view of the apporaching pathways it is ridiculous to think that you can win there by rushing him with Zerglings. If you stick to "your standard strategy" and do not adapt it isnt the fault of the units or the map, but rather the fault of the player. No one would build only ground units on a pure island map is the extreme example for this, but there are subtle advantages to certain units on every map. Kulas Ravine for example favors the useage of Reapers, so you have to expect them; it is also nice for Colossi, blinking Stalkers or sieged Tanks. Expect them to be used and steer away from Zerglings or other stuff that is weak against them and change your strategy accordingly.

On September 10 2010 18:24 sleepingdog wrote:
another thing I forgot to mention:

there are currently two units that kinda screw up the concept of terran; the reaper and the hellion; terran were originally designed to be a strong but kinda immobile race; in BW if they wanted to harass, they had to do it with high, high micro (vulture); now the reaper and the hellion allow for a really "easy" harassment that even a bad player can do somewhat successfully - critically, neither requires an upgrade for higher speed; I never understood why reapers were given to terran in the first place; if you think about it, if you took away the whole reaper-unit terran wouldn't suffer in any matchup - in TvZ many Ts go for early hellions anyway; in TvP reapers are completely denied by an early stalker

Scout.

Build a couple of crawler and defense is done (1 on each side of the minerals) for the initial harrass reaper, then move them to the front.

Put a queen on the ramp, so it cant get through, to deny early helion harrass, then move those spine crawler i spoke before to the ramp and voila!.

So whats the problem?

On September 10 2010 19:28 heishe wrote:
the fact that medivacs can drop without an upgrade has ALWAYS bothered me. it probably isn't in the focus of a lot of people because soooo few terrans drop effectively. I still wait for boxers official switch to sc2 when he drops in 4 places at once and abuses cliffs etc. then everyone will be complaining about medivacs 100%.