|
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: - 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.
- 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.
Yet another Rabiator "it's all about the maps" post.
|
On September 10 2010 10:52 KillerPlague wrote:
well written!
Really? I found it to be one of the most terribly written thread OPs here. Well conceived, maybe.
|
I read the OP, but not the rest of the thread, so please forgive me if any of this has been said.
The OP is so biased that it makes me sick. Not only is not taking into account HALF as many variables as he needs to in order to rate the balance of these features, but he also shows blatant abuse of double standards. Allow me to specify:
Overlords vs Medivacs differences:
Medivac:
Pros:
Heals
Can be made with Reactor
Can be made with no add-on or Tech Lab
1 Armor
Can be repaired
Cons:
Cost 100 gas each
42 second build time
150 HP
Has Energy
It requires a minimum of 300/200/110 resources in Tech (Factory and Starport cost and combined build time) for a Terran to have the capability of making Medivacs.
Overlord:
Pros:
Already being produced
Can spawn as many as you have larva
Can generate Creep
Cost only Minerals
Heals over time
25 second build time
200 HP
Can be made into Overseer
Cons:
Puts supply at risk
Starts out slow
Requires 200/200 upgrade for Drop capability
Requires 100/100 upgrade for speed
It's hard to put a minimum time on how fast Zerg can do drops since it depends on if they go straight for Lair and if they have a 2nd Hatch up so they can get the upgrades at the same time. Also, you have to factor in that Terran needs to take the time to build the Medivacs while the Zerg will have Overlords ready and waiting. I THINK the Terran can have one or a perhaps a few Medivacs out before the Zerg could do drops, but once the Zerg's upgrades finish, they instantly have half a dozen or more transports already done.
I'm sure I've missed a ton of Pros and Cons for both units, but I hope at least that the above makes this point hit a bit harder: You cannot compare units/mechanics/strategies/etc of the races side by side, and you sure as hell can't compare them in a vacuum. There are so many variables involved, and the mechanics of each race overlap in so many different ways that you can't single anything out. You have to compare one finished product to another finished product, and that is obscenely hard to do when you try to make the races as unique as these. Even Blizzard has a hard time balancing this. I don't see why people on these forums think it's easy.
For instance, look at the Supply mechanic of each race. Supply Depots can also be used as doors. They can be repaired, and they will burn down once they're low enough on health without being repaired. Overlords can fly, generate creep, regenerate health, turn into detectors with spells, and can be upgraded to dropships. Pylons power buildings and serve as warp-in points for Protoss Buildings, and have shields that regenerate.
None of the "extra" features of these mechanics are really even comparable. Not to mention the mechanics that define the races that affect these units: Protoss can start as many Pylons as they can afford with a single Probe and then just walk away. Terran have to build one at a time and keep the worker with it, but they can repair them. Zerg can make as many as they have Larva, but those are larva that they won't have for Drones or Units.
Is my point starting to become clear? If I had to guess (and I do), I would say that, during creation, Blizzard likely came up with some sort of Point System for various mechanics and stats. At first, I'm sure the point values were not much more than an educated guess for the more complicated mechanics. They probably tried to ensure that each race could have a certain "point" value at any given time and that they built up as evenly as possible with the other races. As players figure out more and more strategies and tactics for the game, Blizzard has to collect the data and recalculate their point values and come up with a way to even them back out without pissing too many people off.
The point that I'm ever-so-slowly building up to in this post is this: In order to make an accurate assesement of the balance of even just 2 of the races (all 3 is obviously far more difficult), you would need to put more than 10 minutes/an hour/a day/a week of thought into the issue. If you're a certified genius with lots of experience in game development and/or mathematics with access to all the necessary data, tons of helpful software, and a solid framework in which to construct your data, then MAYBE in about a month you could come up with something that is worth more than a flat out guess. Considering that Blizzard has all of the above and much more and definitely doesn't update once a month, I would say that I'm being damn optimistic of your chances of not sounding like a complete idiot.
|
I like the whole 'paying for drop' upgrade idea, though, I'm not sure how much that will change the state of terran dropping. Even if the upgrade is 200/200, the same for zerg, that just means slightly longer turtling with the same result. The only difference are a few earlier game units and the upgrade time, which I suppose is the issue at hand (though I haven't played opponents good enough to go for the super-early drops). I also thought the tech switching note was pretty interesting. Tech switches are a huge zerg strategy in BW. While still easier to accomplish in SC2 as zerg, terran has also picked up on this advantage. It's an interesting twist for sure!
Just as a general note, I think some of the issue will be resolved as zerg mechanics develop with practice time. Zerg is by and large the most mechanically-demanding race in the game, much like terran is in BW. It's harder for terrans to work their way to the C-levels while their multitasking develops. Now it's the zerg issue. Sure, learning zerg in BW is no cakewalk, but there isn't as much multitasking. In SC2 the tasks range from scouting, making drones, making units, injecting larva, spreading creep, balancing worker production with unit production all while executing a build order that enables the overall strategy. Just like in BW, zerg mistakes are much more costly than T or P mistakes. Something as small as forgetting a few larva injects can make or break the game. However, I look on all of this as a challenge. Bring it on!
|
On September 10 2010 10:14 drewbie.root wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:12 lol.Donkament wrote:
Vey good post
Im ok with all points and you solution, but many other things need to be fix like 25sec missilT Vs 40sec for spore build construction
marrauder = 20D Vs armored and can use stim pack, the marrauder is cheap 100/25 have 6 range
hellion is cheap units too.
solution :
MissilT construction 25sec to 35sec
Remove stim pack for marrauder, make stim pack less cheaper, upgrade for Marrauder need countdown.
Hellion cost 100/25. lol good joke lets make tanks 400/400 and 6 supply while we're at it, and banshees only 1 attack instead of 2 and 20 hp and remove cloak
I'm curious which of those changes you feel are so ridiculous. I don't necessarily agree with them but I don't think they any more ludicrous than the current state of the game.
|
On September 10 2010 12:36 Wargizmo wrote:
It comes down to this, if you could rate all the races in various areas:
-mobility
-scouting
-ability to deny scouting
-tech switching ability
-economy
-ability to control space
-detection
-number of viable allins/cheeses
-hard counters available
-harrassment
-early defense
-late game defense
-ability to dominate air.
etc etc
then Terran would rate as an A or B in every single area, whereas the other races are a mixed bag. In short Terran doesn't really have any defined weaknesses so to speak, they're either strong or at least decent in any given situation you can throw at them.
That's why I agree with the OP in that nerfing this unit or that unit isn't the problem, the race overall just doesn't have weaknesses to balance out its strengths
So true. I'll try to rate each of the 3 races in these areas (in my opinion/experience):
T
-mobility B (MMM very mobile, tanks/thors not)
-scouting A
-ability to deny scouting A
-tech switching ability B (tech labs/reactors)
-economy B (MULEs)
-ability to control space A (three 9+ range units)
-detection A
-number of viable allins/cheeses A
-hard counters available A (almost every Terran unit hard counters something)
-harrassment A (reaper, hellion, banshee, medivac)
-early defense A
-late game defense A (planetary, sensor towers)
-ability to dominate air A (vikings)
Z
-mobility A (hydras are the only glaring exception)
-scouting early game F mid-late game A
-ability to deny scouting F
-tech switching ability A
-economy A
-ability to control space F
-detection B
-number of viable allins/cheeses F (only baneling bust or 6 pool)
-hard counters available D (only banelings/infestors for light units, corruptors for massive air)
-harrassment B (mutas are good)
-early defense F
-late game defense F
-ability to dominate air B (muta and corruptors are good in large numbers)
P
-mobility B (charge and blink)
-scouting early game F mid-late game A
-ability to deny scouting A
-tech switching ability D (most tech paths require key buildings)
-economy B (weakest economy of the 3 races, though still decent due to ability to chrono nexii)
-ability to control space B (sentries are amazing at this, also colossi are good for this)
-detection B
-number of viable allins/cheeses A
-hard counters available B
-harrassment D (really only phoenixes and warp prisms)
-early defense A
-late game defense B (warp-ins and can make cannons)
-ability to dominate air D
|
On September 10 2010 14:12 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:36 Wargizmo wrote:
It comes down to this, if you could rate all the races in various areas:
-mobility
-scouting
-ability to deny scouting
-tech switching ability
-economy
-ability to control space
-detection
-number of viable allins/cheeses
-hard counters available
-harrassment
-early defense
-late game defense
-ability to dominate air.
etc etc
then Terran would rate as an A or B in every single area, whereas the other races are a mixed bag. In short Terran doesn't really have any defined weaknesses so to speak, they're either strong or at least decent in any given situation you can throw at them.
That's why I agree with the OP in that nerfing this unit or that unit isn't the problem, the race overall just doesn't have weaknesses to balance out its strengths
So true. I'll try to rate each of the 3 races in these areas (in my opinion/experience): T -mobility B (MMM very mobile, tanks/thors not) -scouting A -ability to deny scouting A -tech switching ability B (tech labs/reactors) -economy B (MULEs) -ability to control space A (three 9+ range units) -detection A -number of viable allins/cheeses A -hard counters available A (almost every Terran unit hard counters something) -harrassment A (reaper, hellion, banshee, medivac) -early defense A -late game defense A (planetary, sensor towers) -ability to dominate ground A (tanks) -ability to dominate air A (vikings) Z -mobility A (hydras are the only glaring exception) -scouting early game F mid-late game A -ability to deny scouting F -tech switching ability A -economy A -ability to control space F -detection B -number of viable allins/cheeses F (only baneling bust or 6 pool) -hard counters available D (only banelings/infestors for light units, corruptors for massive air) -harrassment B (mutas are good) -early defense F -late game defense F -ability to dominate ground B (ultralisks, banelings) -ability to dominate air B (muta and corruptors are good in large numbers) P -mobility B (charge and blink) -scouting early game F mid-late game A -ability to deny scouting A -tech switching ability D (most tech paths require key buildings) -economy B (weakest economy of the 3 races, though still decent due to ability to chrono nexii) -ability to control space B (sentries are amazing at this, also colossi are good for this) -detection B -number of viable allins/cheeses A -hard counters available B -harrassment D (really only phoenixes and warp prisms) -early defense A -late game defense B (warp-ins and can make cannons) -ability to dominate ground B (forcefields, colossus) -ability to dominate air D
the "moral of the story" for this post is.
zerg has its advantages, and has disadvantages to even it out.
protoss has its advantages, and has disadvantages to even it out.
terran has its advantages, and then some more advantages in case the prevoius advantages aren't enough.
|
On September 10 2010 14:12 teamsolid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 10 2010 12:36 Wargizmo wrote:
It comes down to this, if you could rate all the races in various areas:
-mobility
-scouting
-ability to deny scouting
-tech switching ability
-economy
-ability to control space
-detection
-number of viable allins/cheeses
-hard counters available
-harrassment
-early defense
-late game defense
-ability to dominate air.
etc etc
then Terran would rate as an A or B in every single area, whereas the other races are a mixed bag. In short Terran doesn't really have any defined weaknesses so to speak, they're either strong or at least decent in any given situation you can throw at them.
That's why I agree with the OP in that nerfing this unit or that unit isn't the problem, the race overall just doesn't have weaknesses to balance out its strengths
So true. I'll try to rate each of the 3 races in these areas (in my opinion/experience): T -mobility B (MMM very mobile, tanks/thors not) -scouting A -ability to deny scouting A -tech switching ability B (tech labs/reactors) -economy B (MULEs) -ability to control space A (three 9+ range units) -detection A -number of viable allins/cheeses A -hard counters available A (almost every Terran unit hard counters something) -harrassment A (reaper, hellion, banshee, medivac) -early defense A -late game defense A (planetary, sensor towers) -ability to dominate ground A (tanks) -ability to dominate air A (vikings) Z -mobility A (hydras are the only glaring exception) -scouting early game F mid-late game A -ability to deny scouting F -tech switching ability A -economy A -ability to control space F -detection B -number of viable allins/cheeses F (only baneling bust or 6 pool) -hard counters available D (only banelings/infestors for light units, corruptors for massive air) -harrassment B (mutas are good) -early defense F -late game defense F -ability to dominate ground B (ultralisks, banelings) -ability to dominate air B (muta and corruptors are good in large numbers) P -mobility B (charge and blink) -scouting early game F mid-late game A -ability to deny scouting A -tech switching ability D (most tech paths require key buildings) -economy B (weakest economy of the 3 races, though still decent due to ability to chrono nexii) -ability to control space B (sentries are amazing at this, also colossi are good for this) -detection B -number of viable allins/cheeses A -hard counters available B -harrassment D (really only phoenixes and warp prisms) -early defense A -late game defense B (warp-ins and can make cannons) -ability to dominate ground B (forcefields, colossus) -ability to dominate air D
Thanks for this totally useless and 100% subjective and in any case irrelevant list of assumptions .... It it totally irrelevant that Terrans have "ability to dominate ground A" when you are attacking from the air, but then you probably believe in "hard counters" solving all your problems with certain units.
|
I've said that the orbital command (namely mule) needs a slight redesign since about the first or second week of beta. Almost 300 minerals per Call down is insane, namely the fact that a Command Center (Orbital) will pay for itself after the 2nd mule. Mules are pretty much the root of every problem.
Aside from that, there was a gigantic thread I believe on Blizzard's forums about the Marauder, including almost everything: Cost, Damage, Utility, Scenarios, Comparisons, Logistics/Intent of the unit.
Medivac issue is obviously a problem, they make Terran agruably. the most mobile and potent race. I Would like to see their cost drastically increased, or an upgrade required, like was mentioned.
Siege tanks are obviously going to be nerfed with the upcoming patch, but I believe the smart fire needs to be scratched, or at least severely altered. Tank + Turret(Which are ridiculous dps) is more or less unbreakable, especially when you factor in bunkers or any supporting units. While I'm talking about turtling, Planetary fortresses are insanely good for the cost - And have actually been used in games (attributed to the Mule's power // 'core mechanics' of terran) just as a defensive building/tower. While this may sound like just my opinion, a lot of 'top' Terran players have agreed with this.
Banshees. Simply put they are too good for their cost. Rivaling a Charged Void Ray's damage is a bit silly for a unit that costs significantly less.
Bunkers. Hands down the best defense. More health than Sunkens and Cannons, Repairable, and salvageable. Being able to bunker + turret + tank push across a small map is almost unbeatable. I'm sure somebody will bring up that "You have to put units inside the bunker!", which is obviously true - However those units already exist, and the bunkers are of no cost unless they are destroyed, and require no form of tech structure that isn't already made.
Lastly, Gas strain for Terran seems ridiculously low compared to the other two races - which I believe is more of an issue with Toss/Zerg infrastructure rather than a T advantage.
I really could go on and find a way to nit pick every Terran unit but these are the gaping flaws that I see.
As far as the other races are concerned:
Zerg lacks a true form of diversity, which is huge in this game. The inability to really 'surprise' your opponent is definitely a hamper - and the ability for exponential economy growth doesn't really even it out.
Protoss, as I mentioned above has a ridiculous gas strain. I really believe that a lot of the tech structures and upgrades costs were severely overlooked. Compared to other races, though zerg isn't too far behind - 4+ gas just to substain late tech units that are 'required' to keep you in the game is a bit much.
|
On September 10 2010 14:23 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 14:12 teamsolid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 10 2010 12:36 Wargizmo wrote:
It comes down to this, if you could rate all the races in various areas:
-mobility
-scouting
-ability to deny scouting
-tech switching ability
-economy
-ability to control space
-detection
-number of viable allins/cheeses
-hard counters available
-harrassment
-early defense
-late game defense
-ability to dominate air.
etc etc
then Terran would rate as an A or B in every single area, whereas the other races are a mixed bag. In short Terran doesn't really have any defined weaknesses so to speak, they're either strong or at least decent in any given situation you can throw at them.
That's why I agree with the OP in that nerfing this unit or that unit isn't the problem, the race overall just doesn't have weaknesses to balance out its strengths
So true. I'll try to rate each of the 3 races in these areas (in my opinion/experience): T -mobility B (MMM very mobile, tanks/thors not) -scouting A -ability to deny scouting A -tech switching ability B (tech labs/reactors) -economy B (MULEs) -ability to control space A (three 9+ range units) -detection A -number of viable allins/cheeses A -hard counters available A (almost every Terran unit hard counters something) -harrassment A (reaper, hellion, banshee, medivac) -early defense A -late game defense A (planetary, sensor towers) -ability to dominate air A (vikings) Z -mobility A (hydras are the only glaring exception) -scouting early game F mid-late game A -ability to deny scouting F -tech switching ability A -economy A -ability to control space F -detection B -number of viable allins/cheeses F (only baneling bust or 6 pool) -hard counters available D (only banelings/infestors for light units, corruptors for massive air) -harrassment B (mutas are good) -early defense F -late game defense F -ability to dominate air B (muta and corruptors are good in large numbers) P -mobility B (charge and blink) -scouting early game F mid-late game A -ability to deny scouting A -tech switching ability D (most tech paths require key buildings) -economy B (weakest economy of the 3 races, though still decent due to ability to chrono nexii) -ability to control space B (sentries are amazing at this, also colossi are good for this) -detection B -number of viable allins/cheeses A -hard counters available B -harrassment D (really only phoenixes and warp prisms) -early defense A -late game defense B (warp-ins and can make cannons) -ability to dominate air D Thanks for this totally useless and 100% subjective and in any case irrelevant list of assumptions .... It it totally irrelevant that Terrans have "ability to dominate ground A" when you are attacking from the air, but then you probably believe in "hard counters" solving all your problems with certain units.
Not even close to 100% subjective, as most of them I gave my reasoning or are extremely obvious to anyone who plays/watches the game. Yes, the ability to dominate ground I kind of added, which was unnecessary. Any other point you'd like to disagree with? Anyways, you don't even own the game yet you always seem to have so much to say in balance topics.
The point is as made by the original poster... that Terran barely have any disadvantages to speak of as a race on the whole.
|
On September 10 2010 14:05 hdkhang wrote:Show nested quote +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: - 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.
- 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. Yet another Rabiator "it's all about the maps" post.
And my reasoning is wrong, because ... ???? [I really would like to know]
Nothing has changed with the influence of maps. Why else do you think that Zerg have so much success on Scrap Station? Because its a huge rush distance and they do not get harrassed as efficiently on the map as on other much smaller maps. Here are two threads on TL which give DATA on the topic:
Rush distance comparison
EU Diamon map-specific Race win-%
Desert Oasis has the biggest [ground] rush distance by far, BUT the natural expansion there is wide open and can be killed easily. Since Zerg need a good economy more than the other races they are screwed.
Blistering Sands and Scrap Station have the longest rush distances, what a coincidence that Zerg have the biggest success on these maps.
The rush distance is not all, the mobility/immobility of the races SHOULD have an influence too, but a few tanks on Steppes of War can control the center and even though Zerg can beat that sometimes it doesnt mean it is fair. Zerg SHOULD be able to surround the enemy and be able to get the Banelings into the MMM ball from the side so they get the Marines and not the Marauders in front, but that isnt possible on most maps. Only Delta Quadrant has a really open center, but there are different issues with that map due to the number of cliffs which are accessible for Reapers and Blink Stalkers very easily and which create a "backdoor through a solid rock".
Please ARGUE your own point of view next time. I have given my data and where are yours?
|
nice post that goes a bit more in depth about the stuff people usually don't talk about. bio's mobility is really scary
|
Terrans just don't have any weaknesses if you think about it, while protoss, and zerg even more so, have moments of weakness at key points during the game, or just general weaknesses due to the nuances of the race.
|
On September 10 2010 14:34 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 14:23 Rabiator wrote:On September 10 2010 14:12 teamsolid wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 10 2010 12:36 Wargizmo wrote:
It comes down to this, if you could rate all the races in various areas:
-mobility
-scouting
-ability to deny scouting
-tech switching ability
-economy
-ability to control space
-detection
-number of viable allins/cheeses
-hard counters available
-harrassment
-early defense
-late game defense
-ability to dominate air.
etc etc
then Terran would rate as an A or B in every single area, whereas the other races are a mixed bag. In short Terran doesn't really have any defined weaknesses so to speak, they're either strong or at least decent in any given situation you can throw at them.
That's why I agree with the OP in that nerfing this unit or that unit isn't the problem, the race overall just doesn't have weaknesses to balance out its strengths
So true. I'll try to rate each of the 3 races in these areas (in my opinion/experience): T -mobility B (MMM very mobile, tanks/thors not) -scouting A -ability to deny scouting A -tech switching ability B (tech labs/reactors) -economy B (MULEs) -ability to control space A (three 9+ range units) -detection A -number of viable allins/cheeses A -hard counters available A (almost every Terran unit hard counters something) -harrassment A (reaper, hellion, banshee, medivac) -early defense A -late game defense A (planetary, sensor towers) -ability to dominate air A (vikings) Z -mobility A (hydras are the only glaring exception) -scouting early game F mid-late game A -ability to deny scouting F -tech switching ability A -economy A -ability to control space F -detection B -number of viable allins/cheeses F (only baneling bust or 6 pool) -hard counters available D (only banelings/infestors for light units, corruptors for massive air) -harrassment B (mutas are good) -early defense F -late game defense F -ability to dominate air B (muta and corruptors are good in large numbers) P -mobility B (charge and blink) -scouting early game F mid-late game A -ability to deny scouting A -tech switching ability D (most tech paths require key buildings) -economy B (weakest economy of the 3 races, though still decent due to ability to chrono nexii) -ability to control space B (sentries are amazing at this, also colossi are good for this) -detection B -number of viable allins/cheeses A -hard counters available B -harrassment D (really only phoenixes and warp prisms) -early defense A -late game defense B (warp-ins and can make cannons) -ability to dominate air D Thanks for this totally useless and 100% subjective and in any case irrelevant list of assumptions .... It it totally irrelevant that Terrans have "ability to dominate ground A" when you are attacking from the air, but then you probably believe in "hard counters" solving all your problems with certain units. Not even close to 100% subjective, as most of them I gave my reasoning or are extremely obvious to anyone who plays/watches the game. Yes, the ability to dominate ground I kind of added, which was unnecessary. Any other point you'd like to disagree with? Anyways, you don't even own the game yet you always seem to have so much to say in balance topics. The point is as made by the original poster... that Terran barely have any disadvantages to speak of as a race on the whole.
Terrans DO have quite a few disadvantages:
1. They HAVE TO build a mix of units much more than other races. Sure Stim-Marauders are awesome, but they excel only if they are coupled with a Medivac [healing] AND Marines [anti-air, anti-Immortal]. As a tight ball they are especially VULNERABLE to Psi Storm and Fungal Growth. Marauders and Marines are both RANGED and thus they "take the same space", which is a clear disadvantage when faced with area spells or attacks.
Protoss can work with Blink Stalkers as a group and only when you have an army made of pure stalkers (supported by 1 Observer to get sight up the cliffs) does it work well enough. Even if Protoss get a mixed army they have Zealots and Stalkers at their core and these "separate" nicely on the battlefield to reduce the vulnerability to area attacks. For Zerg it is the same with Zerglings/Banelings for melee range, Roaches for short range and Hydras for long range.
For Zerg you can be effective with only Speed Zerglings due to the speed difference between Speedlings, Roaches and Hydras.
2. Terrans also have NO MELEE UNIT to abuse any splash damage from opponents, but then the only race where your own splash damage hurts you is Terran. I would call that a definite disadvantage.
3. Immobility. Everyone rages about MMM being too effective (I think that Marauders are too effective and need to lose Stim), and yet they cheer about a nerf to Siege Tanks? That will only give you more MMM "dropship and your Hatch is gone" play. The immobility is there, BUT it is neutralized by the small sizes of the maps. Try hiking a Thor from one base to the other on Scrap Station - the long way - and it will take more than a minute. If there were paths to run around him a few Zerglings could just run to the Terrans base and attack it while the "big boy isnt home". Its dead easy ... the MAPS are the cause and not the units. [see my post above]
4. Terrans have upgrades for Bio, Mech and Air and since they "need" a broader mix it makes sense to actually get them. Zerg and Protoss can get by with just upgrading ground stuff. That is a disadvantage if you ask me.
|
So let me get this straight...
The fundamental mechanics the race is based upon are overpowered?
Ok.
|
On September 10 2010 14:59 STS17 wrote:
So let me get this straight...
The fundamental mechanics the race is based upon are overpowered?
Ok.
No ... its the color of the Marauders boots ... [see TLOwnage] /sarcasm off
|
My problem with just blaming the maps is that If you look at BW the races have options for breaking and holding entrenched positions on cliffs and chokes(Defilers lurkers, reavers). BW speelots also seemed better at storming a defensive position. Not to mention friendly fire and overkill from BW siege tanks.
But In SC2 the options for breaking chokes seems much more skewed than it was in BW. And terrans position has much improved; better turrets, 9 range vikings, point defense drone, planetary fortress, and obviously much better seige tank AI.
|
Add in Negative Damage!
SC1 dragoon 20 damage -10 to small
We currently have Damage + bonus to light/armored
What we really need is Damage - reduction to light/armored armor
|
On September 10 2010 11:58 RyuChus wrote:Show nested quote +Make the drop capability of Medivacs an upgrade just like Zerg as they will be making these units to heal their army in a similar manner to zergs making overlords for supply. They are a necessary unit so why should they get drop capability for no extra cost. This would also require a tech lab on a starport initially in order to start drops.
This- is the one thing I don't like about this thread. Few things. You upgrade it, but it's completely permanent, we have to make multiple medivacs, and zerg HAS to make overlords, so if you get the drop upgrade, every single overlord gets drop. You might as well, return the medics, and dropships. That is what you are trying to say, I don't really agree, with it. Do what you want.
Dude, I dunno if you noticed... But Overlords are like flying supply depots. If you lose a lot of Overlords from a drop, that supply block can really hurt you.
Losing a medvac sucks, but losing an Overlord in a drop is like losing a supply depot and a dropship. But not... You know what I mean.
Cant really compare these two things like that.
|
Dominican Republic463 Posts
ITT Terrans to the rescue, "nope nothing wrong with my race" makes me sick.
Are you all so daft you can only deny imbalance because its the race you play? Is it the ego that gets crushed? What is it.. I dont even...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
