EPTWhy the Terran problems are not an imbalance issue - Page 16
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
ToastieNL
Netherlands845 Posts
| ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
| ||
|
kosai
20 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:43 Cranberries wrote: 24 Races have currently qualified for the Ro32 in GSL. 12 Terran, 8 Protoss and 4 Zerg. The racial matchups thus far: TvZ: 2-2 ZvP: 3-3 PvT: 2-8 I really think the facts are against your arguments.  24 people are too few to put here. look at global sc2 stats, win:lose ratio is pretty even for every race. also, there ARE more terran in many leagues, because there ARE many terran players out there. its 2:1:1 (T: P: Z) i think. | ||
|
arnath
United States1317 Posts
| ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:36 vrok wrote: I understood you from the beginning. I just think it's a very narrow minded view that ignores the fact that repairing scvs are more dangerous than attacking scvs and should be treated as such, i.e same attack priority as attacking units. guys please keep in mind that even I think that terrans are OP. i said that in a previous post but not for what the original post was. there i totally disagree. the things mention are balanced and they arent the problem. trust me i know whats coming for terrans in the next patch and quite frankly im looking forward to it. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:46 kosai wrote: 24 people are too few to put here. look at global sc2 stats, win:lose ratio is pretty even for every race. also, there ARE more terran in many leagues, because there ARE many terran players out there. its 2:1:1 (T: P: Z) i think. Well what the GSL stats show is more about debunking the whole concept that Zerg dominates in Korea. Out of the 4 zerg that have qualified 3 are Idra/Cool/Check. They are arguably in the top 5 Zergs in the world. So kinda strange there aren't more of the other zergs in there. | ||
|
Cranberries
Wales567 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:46 kosai wrote: 24 people are too few to put here. look at global sc2 stats, win:lose ratio is pretty even for every race. also, there ARE more terran in many leagues, because there ARE many terran players out there. its 2:1:1 (T: P: Z) i think. Actually the split was 26 P / 21 T / 15 Z if I recall correctly. | ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:16 Cranberries wrote: If you really want to balance PvT into perfection just give the Stalker a base damage of 11/15 with +1/+2 on attack upgrades. With this the Stalker (compared to the Marauder) will always trade itself equally with the Marauder if both are on the same level of upgrades - and when the Marauder or Stalker are 1 ahead, the unit with the higher upgrade will perform better (as it should be). At the moment a +2 Stalker loses to a +1 Marauder and a +1 Stalker trades equally to a 0/0 Marauder. This isn't how it should work. Attack upgrades should grant an upgrade, not grant equal footing with a unit that produces faster, is cheaper, and can slow and snipe buildings relatively fast. you cant compare everything unit for unit. thats not how starcraft works. although i do agree with what youre saying. keep in mind that what youre saying is that attribute for attribute marauders are stronger than stalkers. its like comparing a ling with a zealot and trying to see who will win. thats not how the game works. but i do agree the more especially protoss players lack a hard early game counter to the rauder | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:47 eu.exodus wrote: guys please keep in mind that even I think that terrans are OP. i said that in a previous post but not for what the original post was. there i totally disagree. the things mention are balanced and they arent the problem. trust me i know whats coming for terrans in the next patch and quite frankly im looking forward to it. why should anyone trust you??? your posts also don't make you look like a trustworthy person... arguing with terran is like arguing with a wall it seems. none of the issues of the OP is being addressed by the next patch (as far as the notes are released, could be they will change way more). | ||
|
Lennon
United Kingdom2275 Posts
On September 10 2010 11:15 MindRush wrote: right now, zergs are domination in Korea and Asia in general. Look at how Sen is doing, CheckPrime, even our friendly neighborhood IdrA for that matter. Messing up with terran to balance some bronze level issues might cause some major balance blow at top-level play. Zergs aren't dominating in Asia; the races are just more balanced in terms of success. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:38 BlindPhaydo wrote: I don't see what you gain by trying to disguise an obvious balance discussion as a discussion about "mechanics." Of the arguments you made, only the one about prioritizing SCV targeting has to do with mechanics, the others are all pure balance arguments. For example, your argument about Sensor Towers is that they're too cheap, build too fast, and cover too much area. This has nothing to do with mechanics, you're just saying they should tweak the numbers for the sake of balance. Also, removing swappable tech labs and reactors from the game would take away one of the unique and interesting aspects about Terran. It would be like saying we should take warp gates away from Toss because it's a unique ability that other races don't have. These are fundamental aspects of the design of both races, and the game would be less interesting without them. Blizzard is going about balance the right way, by tweaking the damage/cost/build times etc. Not overhauling the basic design of each race, which is totally unnecessary. In short, just be up front that your thread is complaining about BALANCE, like many other threads. Don't feel you have to hide that fact. I think balance threads get a bad name because most often people put no effort into them and just whine. This OP had a lot of effort put into it, so it doesn't deserve that same stigma, though it is definitely, contrary to the title, a balance thread. This is exactly correct. The ONLY reason why any of the issues that are raised in the OP are relevant is because they pertain to balance. I don't think that the mechanics need drastic changes. Yes, they're very powerful if properly used, but so are warp in, spawn larvae, and creep tumors. The real problem with terran are the strength and relative cheapness of many their units. I won't comment on ZvT, but in PvT, the tier 2 advantage that terran has over protoss is absolutely disgusting. For example, and as has been well-documented, once a bioball with ghosts and medivacs reaches a certain size, protoss needs tier 3 to compete. Even if the protoss has the proper tier 3 units out (like high templar), victory still isnt' guaranteed against a pure tier 2 terran army given the strength of EMP, stim, and medivacs. Basically, protoss does not have a unit or force composition that can force terran off of bio. (Don't even bring up carriers or massed void rays, those are too expensive to seriously consider, and only come into play if the protoss has a huge economic advantage over the terran) When you compare this to PvZ, where both protoss and zerg can force each other down certain tech paths, which makes for a very dynamic matchup, you start to understand how stupid PvT is right now. Unless Blizzard has changes in mind for patch 1.1 other than what they've disclosed so far, this won't be changing any time soon. Before someone comes in an flames me for being a newb who complains about PvT, I'm don't believe that the overall matchup is imbalanced such that protoss can't win. I win most of my PvT's. My point is that the internal dynamics of the matchup are retarded and need some tweaking, primarily because of aspects of terrans as they exist now. | ||
|
Capnstank
Canada47 Posts
Now in SC2 you have the no-overshoot which means tanks are inherently smart and can immediately stop a wall of incoming melee units. Blizzard keeps trying to compensate for this advantage by nerfing tank damage, which I think is the absolute worst way to do it. Make tanks overshoot and suddenly zerglings are a viable counter. Hell, with overshoot terran could drop MULES on the tank line to force them into suicide mode. I simply think the over-simplification of unit AI has changed this game. In BW the best players overcame pathing and issues like ramps/friendly splash etc. while the struggling players just dealt with it. In SC2 there is hardly a gap between player's abilities to control units. My ability to move a MMM ball is just as good as a top tier player. There is practically no additional skill required to keep your units balled where in BW it was an essential skill to have a proper ball and spread when required. | ||
|
Cranberries
Wales567 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:51 eu.exodus wrote: you cant compare everything unit for unit. thats not how starcraft works. although i do agree with what youre saying. keep in mind that what youre saying is that attribute for attribute marauders are stronger than stalkers. its like comparing a ling with a zealot and trying to see who will win. thats not how the game works. but i do agree the more especially protoss players lack a hard early game counter to the rauder 4 Zerglings (100 minerals) can beat 1 Zealot (100 minerals) with sufficient micro, likewise the Zealot can kill the 4 Zerglings with micro. With +1 upgrade 1 Zealot can take on 6 Zerglings before death. (assuming no speed upgrade) The problem is that the Stalker is more expensive than the Marauder and the Stalker loses to it. You really would never build Stalkers in PvT if Banshees weren't super awesome. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:11 eu.exodus wrote: overlords cant be compared to medivacs. To get them you must . . . Rax, fact, port, medivac and pay for every one you build. Overlords get built every time you need supplies which you need anyway and the by just by teching to a lair hey presto. Every overlord you already have can drop. So its balanced. You pay once for the ability to drop with zerg but pay every time for the ability to drop with the benifit of healing at the extra expense. Sounds balanced to me It would be balanced if your units auto-targeted my overlords instead of killing, y'know, my army. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
Throw in Sensor Towers as well and its just laughable how strong Terran drops are, and how weak everyone's else's are. I'm sure Blizzard did a lot of testing with unit stats to make sure that equal cost and supply armies beat each other fairly, but you have to wonder how much effort they put into each race's bag of tricks. Terrans need to play the other races for a while, and need to actually play against Medivac drops before they claim how easy they are to stop. | ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:47 arnath wrote: Explain to me how tech lab/reactor swapping is any different than zerg (for example) having a Roach Warren and a Spire and being able to make a lot of mutas and eventually tech switch back to roaches. keep in mind that in mid game all unit producing buildings will have attachments on them. A (decent) terran player will (if hes scouting properly) build what he needs to counter you, or quickly go for something like teching to banshees as soon as possible to harass which will involve some attachment swapping. either way it end up with have stationary building that most of the time use the same attachment. late game more rax fax or ports will be built to again either counter or instigate, either way, if you scout right you know exactly whats coming. | ||
|
thekoven
United States128 Posts
| ||
|
HolydaKing
21253 Posts
| ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote: Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. you know there are only 4 zerg in round of THIRTY TWO, right? 4/32 isn't doing fine. | ||
|
TMTurtle
183 Posts
On September 11 2010 00:47 arnath wrote: Zerg has to spend time building both tech buildings. Any time during this, it can be easily scanned/scouted and reveal the Zerg's build plans.Explain to me how tech lab/reactor swapping is any different than zerg (for example) having a Roach Warren and a Spire and being able to make a lot of mutas and eventually tech switch back to roaches. The tech lab is already built. You could be building Marauders with it, Reapers with it, Siege Tanks with it, Banshees, or Ravens with it. And there really is no way to tell. | ||
| ||
