|
On September 11 2010 00:53 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:47 eu.exodus wrote:On September 11 2010 00:36 vrok wrote:On September 11 2010 00:29 eu.exodus wrote:On September 10 2010 23:55 vrok wrote:On September 10 2010 23:52 eu.exodus wrote:
When youre harrasing the whole point is to click on workers. Really? Then you need to tell your fellow terrans to stop dropping 8 marauders in our bases and sniping the nex/hatch/cc in 5 seconds flat. They should be attacking the workers! What a bunch of rofl-noobs! main word being harrasing. If you are harrasing. Workers stay low priority with every race, so the point is if you are harrasing and your opponent sends defense, your attack priority changes. So you would have to click on the workers. Read buddy. It was a discussion about auto repair in a fight. Not marauder harasment. I hope it makes sense to u now. 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. 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).
you forget, terrans play terrans as well. and trust me theres nothing more annoying than a guy who starts off offensively then when he starts losing turtles up with like 30 siege tanks and = air defense. and not only that, im not necessarily only a terran. im trying to learn the game dynamics with one race at a time. quite honestly im no pro. and have a lot to learn. right now im playing and making obsevations.
|
On September 11 2010 01:06 crms wrote:Show nested quote +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.
"24 Races have currently qualified for the Ro32 in GSL.
12 Terran, 8 Protoss and 4 Zerg. "
read nested quotes inb4 u post something stupid please
@edit ok theres no nested quote with that info but you can still read previous posts?
|
On September 11 2010 00:58 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:51 eu.exodus wrote: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 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.
i agree with you buddy. it would make more sense if the rauders and stalkers prices were reversed. because when looking at dps rauders win hands down. and even as a terran player im saying that its unfair in early game. but i cant mention how many replays ive watched where bioball vs psi storm ends up with a protoss win. same with bioball vs well placed burrowed b'lings. its not unstoppable.
|
Another issue I've had with Terran is .. how come it seems like they simply have more "interesting" and useful upgrades? The Terran Engineering Bay has the standard ground infantry upgrades (weapons and armor) but ALSO has:
- Hi-Sec Auto Tracking (increasing range of various things),
- Neosteel Frame (increasing holding capacity of bunkers/CC) and
- Building Armor.
In addition, it opens up the tech path the not just missile turrets... not just planetary fortress... but Sensor Towers as well? Compare this to the Zerg Evo Chamber or the Protoss Forge, both of which only provide the basic ground army upgrades and opens up the option to get Spore Crawlers and Photon Cannons.
It seems like the Engineering Bay (and T in general) got the next-generation starcraft TWO treatment while the Evo and the Forge still only have waht they had in SCBW. Are these additional upgrades even necessary, gameplay-wise, for Ts?
Shouldn't the Evo chamber also have some "interesting" upgrades similar to the Engineering Bay? Imagine if the Evo chamber had some upgrade which made creep more persistent after the tumor/hatchery dies, or allows the creep to spread faster/larger. Imagine if it had some upgrade to also increase the range of the spore/spine crawlers (afterall, why should T have this upgrade when it already has the most ranged units in the game... 9 range Viking AtA anyone?). What if the Evo Chamber opened up the tech path the Overseers, similarly to how the E-Bay allows the Sensor Tower?
There just seems to be a lot of discrepancies between the amount of effort put into developing what each race in this game should and shouldn't have. It really does seem like since this is the Terran storyline, Terrans got the most upgrades. That's pretty retarded game design.
|
I'd argue Zerg and Protoss are not doing well considering Terran are currently making up 50% of the Ro32 and P/Z are barely getting through. Most Z/P have gotten through from the ZvP matchup, actually.
|
On September 11 2010 00:58 Cranberries wrote:
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.
Guys for god's sake, you know stalkers can shoot air right?! Comparing unit to unit is a ridiculous argument.
|
On September 11 2010 01:28 babolatt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:58 Cranberries wrote:
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. Guys for god's sake, you know stalkers can shoot air right?! Comparing unit to unit is a ridiculous argument.
lol true that. i forgot that one.
|
On September 11 2010 01:28 babolatt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:58 Cranberries wrote:
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. Guys for god's sake, you know stalkers can shoot air right?! Comparing unit to unit is a ridiculous argument.
Stalkers are awful, absolutely awful at taking out air. Seriously, Stalkers suck at combatting air. Much worse than Marines, and Pheonix are only competitive against light.
|
I don't think the Tech Lab is that big of a deal. You see Starports with Tech Labs and you know he has access to Banshees. If you scout a Terran at the 6m mark, see two Starports with Tech Labs and one of the Tech Labs working, you know its a cloak Banshee rush (until someone makes a HSM rush a viable build, anyway).
Terrans really don't have any reason to make Reactors because A) you can't do upgrades with it, B) if you run into a situation where you need more Marauders (mass Stalkers/Roaches), or you suddenly decide you want to do Banshee harass, you're screwed. Reactors are just good for cash dumps. But, if you're good you won't need a cash dump to begin with. You'll build enough buildings with Tech Labs ahead of time to be able to produce lots of units as and when you need them.
Its all those other 'bag of tricks' type things that are just stupidly overpowered. Sensor Tower making you immune to drops? Spamming an important support unit for your bio army and being able to do drops at ANY time against armies that DON'T have things like Sensor Towers? Temporary impenetrable defenses that cost you absolutely nothing in the long-run? Oh-shit button that allows one unit to take on the entire world by itself? They can even call down MULEs anywhere on the battlefield and do that job in the middle of a fight. Come on guys. Something's got to give here.
|
On September 11 2010 01:28 babolatt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:58 Cranberries wrote:
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. Guys for god's sake, you know stalkers can shoot air right?! Comparing unit to unit is a ridiculous argument.
shooting air and moving fast wont help a stalker win against marauders. Especially when terrans mineral drains are excellent Ground to Air units.
|
I dont get why someone would build stalkers if you know marauders counter them, then you cry about it...They deal only 3 more damage to armor, they doesnt not hardcounter armoured units...
|
Blizz seems to like the idea of stim marauders, wouldn't changing how much hp lost to a 20% apposed to 10 flat be a small but significant nerf. this would also limit the effectiveness of the combat shield for marines but i don't think that would be terrible.
Can't we discuss these ideas after the tank and reaper nerfs happen?
|
On September 11 2010 01:33 Madkipz wrote:
shooting air and moving fast wont help a stalker win against marauders. Especially when terrans mineral drains are excellent Ground to Air units.
Listen I'm just being the faulty logic police, I'm not arguing for or against balance. It is faulty logic to think that an equal cost unit should always be equal against another equal cost unit. Units have different abilities.
What if I said "A viking should be able to kill an equal cost ground unit", do you think that is a valid argument?
|
On September 11 2010 01:39 Calidus wrote:
Blizz seems to like the idea of stim marauders, wouldn't changing how much hp lost to a 20% apposed to 10 flat be a small but significant nerf. this would also limit the effectiveness of the combat shield for marines but i don't think that would be terrible.
Can't we discuss these ideas after the tank and reaper nerfs happen?
Those nerfs shouldn't really happen to begin with. They're not the problem. Nobody with any sense is going to be rushing head-first at tank lines with blobs of Light units tomorrow anymore than they are today. The problem is you can't circumvent tanks with drops and Nydus Worms because of things like Sensor Towers giving them an enormous advance warning and a handful of units show up and thwart it before it could do anything.
With Reapers, its the Bunker and difficulty of nailing that SCV with a Drone that's the problem.
If a Terran uses neither of those strategies today, they get things like MMM or Hellion drops, which are unlocked quickly and are just too frigging good at decimating your opponent's economy before they have a chance to respond. Are we supposed to invest 600 minerals in defenses around every dang corner of our bases? Who's the defensive, immobile race now then?
You can't have mobility like that AND advance anti-drop warning systems AND cost-free impenetrable defenses all at the same time. Its just not right.
|
On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Wow... seriously?
First... you compare tech/reactor with zerg ability to just make one building and every hatchery can do the unit?
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
Auto repair? meh... whatever.
But i like you... your the only one that doesnt qq about marauder with stim.
No, you don't understand what he's saying. He's not saying that tech labs are superior for production. He's talking about scouting. If I scout a tech lab, I can't say for sure what's coming. Is it a reaper? Is it a marauder? It makes it hard to anticipate the Terran player until the army is already produced, but by then, building the counter-tech may be too late. A classic example: I scout an early tech lab on a barracks and expect reapers, so I build a roach warren. He doesn't harass with reapers and instead shows up with a marauder heavy bio-push. Well, that didn't work out right...
The difference in scouting is: if you scan and see a spire, there's no way to guess wrong -- the Zerg is building mutalisks. If you scan and see a robotics support bay, there's no way to guess wrong -- he's building colossus. If a Terran scans you with a tech lab on a factory, what are you building? I guess we'll find out when it's done!
You don't understand his medivac point either. Let's say, for the sake of argument, medivacs couldn't transport units. You'd still build them to heal your troops. That's his point -- you're building them for that function but getting the drop option essentially as a bonus. You would have built them anyway if they were just flying medics! His point had nothing to do with the cost, fragility or effectiveness of the medivac as a transport.
|
On September 11 2010 01:47 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 01:39 Calidus wrote:
Blizz seems to like the idea of stim marauders, wouldn't changing how much hp lost to a 20% apposed to 10 flat be a small but significant nerf. this would also limit the effectiveness of the combat shield for marines but i don't think that would be terrible.
Can't we discuss these ideas after the tank and reaper nerfs happen? Those nerfs shouldn't really happen to begin with. They're not the problem. Nobody with any sense is going to be rushing head-first at tank lines with blobs of Light units tomorrow anymore than they are today.
Those tanks are going to kill 30% less of those light units, and that means I'll be a lot more willing to send light units at tank lines. So if I'm not in my "right mind" but you are, then what is your idealized cutoff for when this nerf would become effective? 50% less kills?
My main point is that number changes can solve almost any issue in the game. At the very extreme, tanks could do 1 HP of damage against light. Then you would surely have to *not* have any sense to *not* send your light units at tanks.
|
On September 10 2010 23:33 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 22:58 babolatt wrote:
So judging by this thread, every Terran unit is OP? can you point a finger on a terran unit that can not in any way or form be called op when compared to anything the other races have as an "equalent" ?? While overpowered is the wrong word to use, Overtuned and better designed is a better analogy. Show nested quote +I hear ya man, it seems like every zerg player just gets on the ladder for an hour. Loses a game against Terran and decides to spend the next hour making a whine post instead of trying to get better at the match up. riiight. They both are capable of being dropships as a secondary purpose. THe zerg does not make overlords to drop, he makes them to get supplies. The terran makes medivacs to heal their army, drop is a secondary purpose for a great unit capable of tanking hits from ranged units because of its high priority. And it should thusly have a similar 200/200 upgrade for drop tech.
And they should thusly be 100 minerals 0 gas and provide 8 supply and be built from the command center.
|
On September 11 2010 01:32 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 01:28 babolatt wrote:On September 11 2010 00:58 Cranberries wrote:
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. Guys for god's sake, you know stalkers can shoot air right?! Comparing unit to unit is a ridiculous argument. Stalkers are awful, absolutely awful at taking out air. Seriously, Stalkers suck at combatting air. Much worse than Marines, and Pheonix are only competitive against light.
Blink Stalkers aren't awful versus Mutalisk.
|
|
|
On September 11 2010 02:01 opkoad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 01:47 Bibdy wrote:On September 11 2010 01:39 Calidus wrote:
Blizz seems to like the idea of stim marauders, wouldn't changing how much hp lost to a 20% apposed to 10 flat be a small but significant nerf. this would also limit the effectiveness of the combat shield for marines but i don't think that would be terrible.
Can't we discuss these ideas after the tank and reaper nerfs happen? Those nerfs shouldn't really happen to begin with. They're not the problem. Nobody with any sense is going to be rushing head-first at tank lines with blobs of Light units tomorrow anymore than they are today. Those tanks are going to kill 30% less of those light units, and that means I'll be a lot more willing to send light units at tank lines. So if I'm not in my "right mind" but you are, then what is your idealized cutoff for when this nerf would become effective? 50% less kills? My main point is that number changes can solve almost any issue in the game. At the very extreme, tanks could do 1 HP of damage against light. Then you would surely have to *not* have any sense to *not* send your light units at tanks.
Tanks should be blowing up people that charge at them head first. That's their job. If they don't have a strong ground presence, what's the point of an immobile, long range, ground-only attacking unit?
Its the other guy's job to CIRCUMVENT THEM. But, you can't do that when an investment of a few Sensor towers gives you ample response time to send a handful of MM or Vikings to go thwart it entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
