|
Okay so everyones crying over Terran imba, terran OP but after quite a long time of looking at it and watching games and really thinking about it I have come to a conclusion. The terran race seems slightly overtuned but it's not an issue with any one particular unit it's a combination of many things that when put together makes it very difficult to solve. So instead of making another whine thread I plan on laying out the issues that I see and putting up the problem that is "how do you fix this?" Because there really is no easy way to solve some of the issues that we are seeing without breaking other things.
So what exactly am I talking about? Let me elaborate for you on some of the specific non numbers related issues that are causing problems in the way the Terran units work.
Issue #1: This thing
![[image loading]](http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/7048/200pxtechlabsc2rend1.jpg)
Not even going to mention how you can't tell if it's upgrading or not.
Stop and think about the number of tech buildings required for Terran, once you have a barracks a factory and a starport the only additional tech buildings are: Armory, Ghost Academy, and Fusion Core (lol). Okay we're seeing more of the last one but all of the rest comes down to switching things around on those tech labs. They're cheap they build quickly and it's easy with any decent amount of APM to swap around buildings to change your tech patterns dramatically. This entire dynamic allows Terran to if anything easier to switch tech paths with than a zerg player. A Zerg player has to drop a building in order to make a new unit and if that building is scouted then you know what is coming.
Protoss need relatively few tech buildings as well but it's a little easier to tell when they're switching techs because of a few things. Armory can mean thors or it could just be to get more upgrades you don't know whats coming out of that factory until you see the unit pop out. Ghost Academy is a pretty strong indication of GHOSTS fair enough same as Fusion Core but even if they're just sitting on an Armory possibly just for upgrades they can on short notice switch their tech patterns around easily. 3 Rax bio easily with some tech lab switching becomes banshee raven marine. More switching becomes Marauder Thor Medivac. Terran one of the toughest races to scout is able to freely tech switch almost the easiest. This is kind of a problem. Why are they the hardest race to scout? Well thats another point
Issue #2: Sensor Towers
![[image loading]](http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3284/starcraft2downloadssens.jpg)
Two of these well placed cause the famous "tits of pain" in different sense
Okay Sensor Towers are a decent idea but the issue is they're pretty cheap, build just as fast a missile turret. Theres no way to counter them, their coverage is ridiculously big and the ability to see units on the minimap requires little to no effort to use them effectively.
So basically we have a cheap spammable tower from pretty much any time forward once you get past the early game that gives terran the ability to know when you're trying to outmaneuver them. They are supposed to be the slow race easy to outmaneuver and abuse their immobility but this does not work when they know it's coming without even having to spend scans. Sensor towers require zero APM, originally in alpha IIRC they only showed units on the fog of war not on the minimap even this would be preferable as players would have to be watching their sensor tower coverage not just sitting macroing while staring at their minimap able to see incoming drops every time. Oh yeah drops
Issue #3: Medivacs
![[image loading]](http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6733/200pxsc2medivacdropship.jpg)
The "heal bus"
Okay this is not the typical complaint about Medivacs, their healing is a lot but whatever medics were pretty freaking powerful as well. The issue is that in order for any decent terran bio strategy the Medivac is required for the healing unless you're going to be going for an early game allin if you don't have medivacs you're doing it wrong. This opens up a unique dynamic to the Terran players, they already have drop tech in almost every game they do not have to spend extra resources in order to drop you because they are already producing a small army of dropships.
In Brood War dropships were a seperate investment that took away from a necessary unit the Science Vessel. In lategame you needed to be pumping Science Vessels in order to make dropships this production had to temporarily cease. Going for drops was a decision for them in BW as it is now for both of the other races in SC2. Protoss have to stop making immortals/colossus/observers to make a warp prism. If they try to do it late game see point #2 on why that won't work. So early drops are this decision to reduce your colossus or Immortal count by Protoss and it better damned well pay off or thats 200 minerals + time that could have gone towards more useful army units.
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.incgamers.com/w/images/1/11/SC2_Phase_Prism_Mode_01.jpg)
Most people don't realize how much of of an investment these are other than just 200 minerals.
Zerg players have to sit through two extremely long tech 2 upgrades on their hatch/Lair totalling 300/300 minerals resources. It's understandable that they have to upgrade and overlords dont automatically drop because they already HAVE to make overlords. See this is where I run into the issue. Both races have to make these units as part of their strategies unless the Terran is going hardcore mech. But only the zerg has to upgrade the drop capability. Terran gains the ability to with no resources invested besides the APM required to shift click a drop in your base while doing something else. This plus the fact that #2 means you cannot do it to them as effecitvely makes this rather infurating as a Zerg or a Protoss.
Issue #4: Auto-repair
![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3634/3619118838_72c8dccf9d.jpg?v=0)
These little guys even though they are missing health are rather formidabble.
This is a two fold issue, the fact that like many other mechanics auto-repair requires no APM right click the icon when you want to use it then turn it off when you are done. This makes strategies such as a fast thor repair allin or a battlecruiser rush inherently more powerful because you have two extremely powerful lategame units being supported by a small army of repairing scvs that require no micro. This means that you only have to support the big ass unit with a few of it's supporting units and let the scvs do their own thing. This takes away considerably from the skill required to execute these types of strategies.
Second issue is the fact that Medivacs take a high priority on auto attack priority because of the fact that they are healing the enemy army. This makes sense many players rage over this but I can understand the reasoning. This is one of the many inconsistencies with terran right here, because the scv when repairing not only is pretty much the lowest unit on the priority list it is one of the hardest to focus fire as opposed to the Medivac. Two units which heal/support the enemy army and the one that is easy to right click on takes auto attack priority and the one that is often hidden by the 3D models it is repairing does not. The main issue is the fact that that thor rush that BC rush that we were talkinga bout earlier while not inherently overpowered because it's a huge investment if it doesn't work they're screwed. This winds up working out like many other all-in attacks but the keys to defeating these strategies often lay in killing the scvs which is not easy even if they're out in the open due to the supporting units but now we're talking about scvs that don't have to be controlled and are hidden by their massive units they are supporting. If one of the two units Medivac and repairing scvs should be on the high priority list it should be repairing scvs.
![[image loading]](http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/3392/manthor.png)
If he were attacking from above you wouldn't be able to see most of those SCVS.
Now this could cause an issue with an scv mining with auto repair being on taking a higher priority but since they already have this priority system worked out pretty nicely with the scvs the check that the game system should make instead of being "is autorepair == on" or whatever code equivalent it should be "is unitattacktoggle == on or isunitaction == repair" subsitute generic variables for the real ones. Make it so that scvs who are repairing are on the same priority as Medivacs again not a unit balance issue just a mechanic issue.
Conclusion
These four things while not the usual things that get whined about in Terran being imba are not easily fixed by tweaking a few numbers as might happen with the Battlecruiser attack damage, or reaper build time, or tank damage etc etc. These are more along the lines of the Core mechanics of the Terran race that cause issues. The problem is that many of these issues work very well together, see #2 and #3 together possibly in combination with #4. And #1 and #2 together meaning quick tech switches with the inability to scout it. This will not be fixed by a simple "just do this" answer it requires more elegant solutions as like I said they're based around supposed staples of the Terran mechanics.
There are somewhat simple fixes that you might be able to suggest but would they really fix the problem? If you notice one of the main things in common with the issues is #2 #3 and #4 all require very little APM. Sensor towers require no management, Medivacs can be easily shift+queued and autorepair takes one click. Even if you change these to take some APM the top level players will still be able to muster the actions to do these effectively anyways, yes it will be tougher and make it much harder so that you can stress a player into missing these mechanics. This might be a way to create a soft fix to the mechanic but it would go against blizzard wanting to make levels of play between top and casuals at least somewhat equal. The only way to counter it is to be a top player and put stress on the terran is not the type of fix that they seem to like so far.
The point #1 on Tech Labs is probably the weakest one as it's not as big of an issue as the other three but in combination with #2 it becomes a pretty big problem.
Solutions?
I can think of a few off the top of my head but they all have downsides.
- 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 also would make it even harder to scout what a Terran is doing causing more inferences. Late to midgame Starport with a tech lab on it, has he already upgraded drop? Is he going for ravens or is he about to switch with a reactor and make Medivacs.
- Make Sensor Towers manageable, either give them an activated ability with a cooldown or energy cost or remove the sight on Mini map harking back to the early days when you could only see the units on the fog of war. Make Terrans have to do more than just make a tower. Because even if they get killed it does not take much time or resources to replace a tower which pretty much prevents you from being able to be dropped on if you have them in good position with antiair on standby.
-Forcing terrans to pan across the fog of war in order to keep up seems a bit silly, yes go stare at the black area. Hmm not the most elegant solution, and MBS makes hitting 0 and hitting the E key to keep your sensor tower coverage up somewhat easier.
- Make a toggle on scvs so that when they are repairing they are a higher priority unit similar to the one for when they are attacking, this is mostly because of the fact that it can be difficult to focus fire units behind a thor, under a battlecruiser as opposed to a Medivac which already is a high priority unit but flies above everything else and is inherently easier to target as needed.
-As stated earlier this could cause issues with the targetting priority of mining scvs.
Afterword
Please keep in mind the final sentences of the introductory paragraph, don't let this degenerate into TERRAN IMBA CRY CRY WHINE WHINE WHY BLIZZ WHY. But more of a "how can we think of ways to elegantly solve this." This will come down to the KISS method of the simplest solutions will probably some of the best. But this does not mean "just remove it" is an answer either. I'm still unsure as to what might fix these issues so thats why I am bringing this up and soliciting opinions. This really isnt a numbers problem of change the health, change their cost etc etc.
tl;dr
No you don't get one look back up and read it lazy bum.
edits: spelling so far
|
The sensor towers are a huge problem... i mean, the ability to track the enemy's movements and drops with just a simple building is just so painful as a zerg myself.
|
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
On September 10 2010 09:52 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
The terran race seems slightly overtuned but it's not an issue with any one particular unit it's a combination of many things that when put together makes it very difficult to solve.
I particularly agree with this.
I agree with the ones you listed but also think it is a lot of other little things as well. What concerns me is if it is indeed an issue of many things are just a little too good it may take a very long time to fix.
|
I definitely agree with the medivac ideas. I think it is a bit crazy that they can have a handful of dropships as an OPTION at any given time. They don't even need to use them for drops, but the option is there, thus the fear is also present in the opponent just from their presence.
Also, you mentioned in the caption about how you can't see upgrades on tech labs. I think this needs to happen 100000%. I HATE not being able to tell if they are upgrading or not. Really frustrating. I am biased, especially when you can SEE what unit someone is making out of a stargate yet you there is no indication if a terran is upgrading at all...
|
You've got some decent points, but I think it's kind of folly to leave out the massive impact that the Marauder has on the dynamics of the race. There would be little wrong with Terran's defensive, countering power if they were just the defensive, countering race. However, a stimmed Marauder ball can kite and murder most other comparable forces on the ground (at lower tech tiers). This presents Terran with a offensive powerhouse that can be a serious hurdle for other races to overcome, then when they do, they have to cope with all the other crazy stuff the Terran has been doing in the meantime.
I'm not sure if the stuff you mentioned is the problem or if the Marauder is the problem and I don't feel I'm good enough at the game to make a judgment on it. All I'm saying is that the Marauder gives an otherwise defensive race a monstrous offense option and that versatility might be at the root of the problem and it should be in the discussion.
|
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.
Read the post there are particular reasons, and it is not any one of these issues individually that is the problem. It is when they are used in conjunction, first you're comparing medivac cost to warpins? Those two are completely unrelated.
Second is you skipped one of my points and then completely ignored the last one? Try to be more constructive if you are going to disagree with me please.
On September 10 2010 10:04 PsionicOtter wrote:
You've got some decent points, but I think it's kind of folly to leave out the massive impact that the Marauder has on the dynamics of the race. There would be little wrong with Terran's defensive, countering power if they were just the defensive, countering race. However, a stimmed Marauder ball can kite and murder almost any other comparable force on the ground (at lower tech tiers). This presents Terran with a offensive powerhouse that can be a serious hurdle for other races to overcome, then when they do, they have to cope with all the other crazy stuff the Terran has been doing in the meantime.
I'm not sure if the stuff you mentioned is the problem or if the Marauder is the problem and I don't feel I'm good enough at the game to make a judgment on it. All I'm saying is that the Marauder gives an otherwise defensive race a monstrous offense option and that versatility might be at the root of the problem.
This I see as more of a numbers problem and not related to this thread as Blizzard can ideally tweak the numbers and Marauders are fine.
|
sensor towers are fine and a cool addition to the game: they are very vulnerable and actually expensive (100 minerals 150 gas i believe?).
medivacs are fine, since they are only useful with bio, and each race has sick ways to deal with bio.
terran tech patterns are fine and unique. it wasn't really any different in broodwar, the main difference is that barracks, factory, and starport have many combinations of units that work well together.
autorepair, i agree, is ridiculous.
|
On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
I WISH medivacs were light...
They also have 150 hp while warp prism has 100 HP and 40 Shield (correct me if I'm wrong)
edit: Oh and medivacs have 1 armor as well, warp prism has 0
|
|
|
United States2928 Posts
Ya I really agree with you on the medivac issue, they are simply too powerful in their current state. I haven't experienced too much issues with the sensor towers tbh, but this may be more of a tvz issue then tvp issue.
|
you forgot planetary fortresses :D
also i wouldn't complain if medvacs were 125 minerals 125 gas, i think that would be reasonable
|
I also agree on the medivac issue. Every bio army has medivacs and by default drop capability. I feel it is too easy to shift que drops with these medivacs and easily snipe expansions and mains, especially since marauders kill buildings so fast. It requires so much more apm to respond to these drops as well.
|
|
|
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.
|
On September 10 2010 10:05 Dog22 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
I WISH medivacs were light... They also have 150 hp while warp prism has 100 HP and 40 Shield (correct me if I'm wrong) edit: Oh and medivacs have 1 armor as well, warp prism has 0
how would them being light change anything? wouldn't it be better if they were armored, more units do bonus dmg vs armored, unless you want thors and phoenix to pwn medivacs
|
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
|
On September 10 2010 10:04 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:04 PsionicOtter wrote:
You've got some decent points, but I think it's kind of folly to leave out the massive impact that the Marauder has on the dynamics of the race. There would be little wrong with Terran's defensive, countering power if they were just the defensive, countering race. However, a stimmed Marauder ball can kite and murder almost any other comparable force on the ground (at lower tech tiers). This presents Terran with a offensive powerhouse that can be a serious hurdle for other races to overcome, then when they do, they have to cope with all the other crazy stuff the Terran has been doing in the meantime.
I'm not sure if the stuff you mentioned is the problem or if the Marauder is the problem and I don't feel I'm good enough at the game to make a judgment on it. All I'm saying is that the Marauder gives an otherwise defensive race a monstrous offense option and that versatility might be at the root of the problem. This I see as more of a numbers problem and not related to this thread as Blizzard can ideally tweak the numbers and Marauders are fine.
I'm not saying it isn't a numbers problem, but that doesn't mean that correcting it can't fix a number of other issues. As you said,
They are supposed to be the slow race easy to outmaneuver and abuse their immobility
Being able to apply serious pressure with ye-olde Marauder ball kinda screws with the tradition of Terrans having to sit inside their wall-in and play more reactively. If the Marauder push option becomes worse, it allows their opponents to focus more on beating the other things that Terran has going for them.
|
really good post raelcun, really good points and u really put ur finger on some issues.
i especially take issue with sensor towers. because terran is such a good turtler, they're just so so easy to protect and imo, really pretty damn imba.
also, zerg drop costs 300/300 doesn't it, not 250/250? (im thinking along the lines of 100/100 for ovie speed, 200/200 for drop)
|
On September 10 2010 10:15 Subversion wrote:
really good post raelcun, really good points and u really put ur finger on some issues.
i especially take issue with sensor towers. because terran is such a good turtler, they're just so so easy to protect and imo, really pretty damn imba.
also, zerg drop costs 300/300 doesn't it, not 250/250? (im thinking along the lines of 100/100 for ovie speed, 200/200 for drop)
Yeah thought it was 150/150 for drops but they changed that didn't they, shows how little I actually play this game lol. I like to watch it far more hang on I'll fix that. And like I've said before it's not any one of these issues in particular it's how well they work together.
|
On September 10 2010 10:12 drewbie.root wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:05 Dog22 wrote:On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
I WISH medivacs were light... They also have 150 hp while warp prism has 100 HP and 40 Shield (correct me if I'm wrong) edit: Oh and medivacs have 1 armor as well, warp prism has 0 how would them being light change anything? wouldn't it be better if they were armored, more units do bonus dmg vs armored, unless you want thors and phoenix to pwn medivacs
Yes, I love phoenix in PvT, so I'm definitely biased in favor of light 
It would also make phoenix reasonably more useful in a purely bio / medivac terran army...
I might be eating my words later since stalkers wouldn't do as much. But I stand by my phoenix build 
|
Tech lab/reactor switch is not a big problem. Terran can't make ten units at once. The problem is the scouting until first overseer/observer pops out, terran has tons of options in early game. Terran needs to have some sort of upgrade like speed for lings, which delays the rush somehow but still gives you opportunity to defend from early aggression.
Marauder+stim+medivac should be the biggest headache for blizzs since its easy to pull off and hard to counter.
|
On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
you must be trolling...
medivac is one the drop mechanic who got the more HP, warp prisme is a paper plane...
adn btw you idea of CD for sensor tower would be so cool
|
I think one fix that could help the add-on issue is the same fix for moving spinecrawlers. Make the seperate and re-join of a production building to an add on take time where the building cannot be making any units.
About 10 seconds for either removal, or re-joining would be sufficent (although not both). This way you don't sacrifice the ability of the Terran to mix and match, but slow it down so that you have to think about it and plan carefully, not instantly switch production modes.
I also like Husky's idea (as well as other people) for adding back in the academy as a tier 1.5 tech building where you see the research happening for stim, reaper speed, and concussive shells. Researching marine shields at the tech lab isn't so bad because it only affects tier 1 units.
Siege tech, and infernal preigniter i don't mind researching at the tech lab also, because the factory comes out later than the barracks. Also, the Thor air splash should be an upgrade at the armory, rewarded by a SLIGHTLY larger AoE than currently (hitting maybe 2-3 magic boxed mutas instead of 1).
Starports are fine as it is imo.
|
The speed of medivac should be decreased imho. They are too fast and get away unpunished.
|
On September 10 2010 10:04 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
sensor towers are fine and a cool addition to the game: they are very vulnerable and actually expensive (100 minerals 150 gas i believe?).
medivacs are fine, since they are only useful with bio, and each race has sick ways to deal with bio.
terran tech patterns are fine and unique. it wasn't really any different in broodwar, the main difference is that barracks, factory, and starport have many combinations of units that work well together.
autorepair, i agree, is ridiculous.
How are sensor towers vunurable? they have a HUGE range and you can build one in you base and the opponent can only dream of killing it.
|
It might just be me, but as a Protoss I find that Marauders seem too strong. They take a lot of damage, yet they also deal a lot, especially when they have stimpacks.
If I were to change it somehow, I would do something perhaps not immediately obvious, but I think very effective, namely lower Marauder range by 1. This would slightly help other units close in on Marauders, as well as lower their mobile power while stimmed a little bit.
|
What about decreasing the amount of units a single medivac can hold?
Make maximum capacity of a medivac 4 so 1 tank, 4 marines, or 2 marauders can fit. Then add a 200/200 upgrade to tech lab to double that.
This also means thor drops require a special upgrade to work.
|
[QUOTE]On September 10 2010 10:18 KhAlleB wrote:
[QUOTE]On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
QUOTE]
you must be trolling...
medivac is one the drop mechanic who got the more HP, warp prisme is a paper plane...[/QUOTE]
Doesnt have a shield... and cant regen hp... but yeah you can repair it... with a cost...
warp prism can power up your canon... and you can warp in units...
Blizz wont make major change till next expension...
The only thing they gonna do is play with the number, they had the whole beta to do thing... and they barely did anything.
|
I really do not like how nowadays threads are aimed at how to change the game, rather than play the game better =/
and btw, i applaud your slick naming of this thread to make it appear it's not a "balance thread." You name it "why it's not an imba issue" and then the thread is about things that appear imbalanced to you.
...
|
On September 10 2010 10:25 MegaBUD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:18 KhAlleB wrote:On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
you must be trolling... medivac is one the drop mechanic who got the more HP, warp prisme is a paper plane... Doesnt have a shield... and cant regen hp... but yeah you can repair it... with a cost... warp prism can power up your canon... and you can warp in units... Blizz wont make major change till next expension... The only thing they gonna do is play with the number, they had the whole beta to do thing... and they barely did anything.
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
|
I do think these are the root of the problems with Terran's strength, especially the point on the medivac and Tech Labs.
That being said however I think it'd be better for the game to develop a bit more rather then make changes.
That also being said I miss Ovie Speed being 50/50
|
On September 10 2010 10:26 avilo wrote:
I really do not like how nowadays threads are aimed at how to change the game, rather than play the game better =/
and btw, i applaud your slick naming of this thread to make it appear it's not a "balance thread." You name it "why it's not an imba issue" and then the thread is about things that appear imbalanced to you.
...
As a commentator I am less biased than most competitive players, I watch the game a lot and observe and I've seen many many different situations and the fact that Blizzard is still trying to fix things means that it still needs some adjustments. How quickly Blizzard can get all of these issues in order plus some others could decide the long term success of the game. Many games have failed because of issues that took too long to be acknowledged and fixed. So no I'm not a player I can't tell people how to play better, I can only make observations on what I think might need some working on. So that is what I am doing.
|
I think tech lab unlocks too much - I'd like to see an academy needed for marauder tech or reaper tech.
|
So basically you're saying terran is overpowered, but the way to fix it is to make them click more?
Why not just fix the broken units?
Does calling it "overtuned" help you get more buy-in from terrans?
|
A separate animation for tech lab upgrades would be nice. As a Protoss if you see a Starport with a tech lab, and the tech lab is flashing it could mean banshees with cloak are on the way, or a Raven is being built. These things require different counters (can't be stalker heavy against Raven timing attack of death, need stalkers to chase down Banshees) but are in no way distinguishable unless you somehow scout around long enough to see what comes out of that Starport. A separate animation for upgrades at the tech lab would at least allow us to make a pretty good guess as to whats coming. Raven energy is not researched for an early Raven/bio attack, so any early upgrade would have to be cloak correct me if I'm wrong. Same thing goes for the barracks and factory upgrades. I don't think this would be too much to ask right? I mean other races can straight up see which units we're building out of our Stargates...
|
On September 10 2010 10:26 avilo wrote:
I really do not like how nowadays threads are aimed at how to change the game, rather than play the game better =/
and btw, i applaud your slick naming of this thread to make it appear it's not a "balance thread." You name it "why it's not an imba issue" and then the thread is about things that appear imbalanced to you.
...
This...
We're not in beta anymore. I don't think the game can be perfectly balanced at the moment without changing it drastically. Maybe they'll balance it after an expansion is released.
|
This is probably the best post so far regarding terran "imbalance".
You are spot on when it comes to the medivac, cant really understand why it hasn't been brought up sooner :\ I hope the medivac will require and upgrade for both drop and speed in the future.
|
Being a random player and seeing it from all three perspectives, I really approve of this post. It is not only a well thought-out and explained post, but it also remains fairly neutral in the discussion. Like I said I play all three races and I definitely see how each of the points is very true. Auto-repair is big thing for me because, in WC3 auto-repair did exist however it was balanced as every race could repair their structures, and specific units. In SC2 this is not the case, Protoss and Zerg cannot repair whatsoever the fact that Terran can, and that most of their units can be repaired in the first place indicates two things as far as I'm concerned. Firstly that Terran has a significant advantage in many situations as a result of being able to repair, and secondly that to gain said advantage the player should have to micro in order to get it. Auto-repair was fine in WC3 because all the races could do so, but in SC2 it simply isn't fair that not only can Terran repair 60 odd percent of their combat units, but that it can be done automatically for the Terran player and no cost to them other than extra SCVs.
|
On September 10 2010 10:26 avilo wrote:
I really do not like how nowadays threads are aimed at how to change the game, rather than play the game better =/
and btw, i applaud your slick naming of this thread to make it appear it's not a "balance thread." You name it "why it's not an imba issue" and then the thread is about things that appear imbalanced to you.
...
I really like how zerg got nerfed in the beta instead of terrans trying to play better(i.e. copying jinro ghost style)..
YEA.
You must be utterly retarded if seeing most of the tournaments ending up with 6 terrans in the top 8 makes you think it isnt a balance issue.
|
Okay.. you can't just bring out all these issues. If they were all addressed, you wouldn't have a race left to fight with. The only thing I agree with is the sensor tower. To fix it, terran should simply be allowed only 1 sensor tower on the map at one time. Just like the mother ship.
Maybe fix one of two things, but not everything. Protoss is actually considered the strongest race in Korea, as most of you probably heard. Storm > Everything. Warp in anything > rally. Stop making these posts.
|
On September 10 2010 10:30 taffy wrote:
So basically you're saying terran is overpowered, but the way to fix it is to make them click more?
Why not just fix the broken units?
Does calling it "overtuned" help you get more buy-in from terrans?
In my opinion Imbalance and Overpowered and many other common terms means that the unit numbers are wrong. Yes my definition might not be completely correct but we're dealing with different things here. I'm not even accusing the terrans of having stupidly powerful units because I think the units themselves for the most part are fine with a few minor tweaks needed here and there the same as Zerg and Protoss. But some of their core mechanics need some work so all of this whining and effort going into fixing the marauder damage numbers etc etc could be fixed in more elegant solutions that would fix more of the units at the same time by changing some of these core mechanics.
Why so confrontational? If you disagree with me spell out why.
|
It would be nice to have indications for tech but in reality with the tank nerfs I really think the main problem is still the marauder being way too powerful for its cost. Maybe 8(+12) armored or 9(+9) armored would be a decent nerf. Or marauders have 100hp at start and require an upgrade to be 125 that cost a bit of gas 100/100.
I really think neo-steel frame should make medivacs go from 4 space to 8 space (aka 4 marines to 8 marines) and have a different look when upgraded. Or make medivacs slower. Just something.
|
On September 10 2010 10:31 lu_cid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:26 avilo wrote:
I really do not like how nowadays threads are aimed at how to change the game, rather than play the game better =/
and btw, i applaud your slick naming of this thread to make it appear it's not a "balance thread." You name it "why it's not an imba issue" and then the thread is about things that appear imbalanced to you.
... This... We're not in beta anymore. I don't think the game can be perfectly balanced at the moment without changing it drastically. Maybe they'll balance it after an expansion is released.
... In 2 years... great.
|
#1 I think the tech labs actually have an animation, it sometimes shows when im watching replays. It just never does it in real time. The main issue I see here is that the same building is used for factory, rax and starport and basically every upgrade that comes out of it is ridiculously cheap for how good they are.
I guess a possible fix would be to let factories and rax share the tech lab but not the starport to give people more time to deal with banshees and the possibility of a BC repair rush.
#2 Agreed. Its like someone at blizzard HQ during development stages said... "in sc1 terran was the immobile race, lets give them something to help out with fending off drops" 2 weeks later marauders and medvacs got into the game and they just "forgot" to remove it. I have no words to describe how dumb i feel my opponent is when I actually manage to sneak in a warp prism into his base because he refused to build a 100/100 structure that is in no risk of dying, lasts the whole game and gives him so much tactical data.
I wouldn't even try to fix this unit, I'd remove it because it has absolutely no place in a fog of war RTS where the race is not forced to be immobile.
#3. Agreed but Id like to add the medvacs themselves aren't the real problem here. Its the fact that the units medvacs carry 98% of the time can kill buildings so fast it doesn't matter if I actually get there in time with some reinforcements. Marauder / marine kiting ends up killing whatever they want. I suppose you could remove medvacs, bring back medics and force terran to make dropships, but knowing blizzard that ain't gonna happen.
#4 Agreed. This is horseshit. I need not to describe how stupid it is to attack a PF or BC with 10 scvs beneath it. Probably the most upsetting part about fending off scv repair based rushes is that you usually end up taking so much damage that terran has a very large window to recover by using mules, dropping 3 bunkers at their front and be safe... thus giving them more chances to get back in the game with harras / drop play.
Simple fix. Only 1 scv can repair each building / unit. Done
|
On September 10 2010 10:35 Doko wrote:
#1 I think the tech labs actually have an animation, it sometimes shows when im watching replays. It just never does it in real time. The main issue I see here is that the same building is used for factory, rax and starport and basically every upgrade that comes out of it is ridiculously cheap for how good they are.
I guess a possible fix would be to let factories and rax share the tech lab but not the starport to give people more time to deal with banshees and the possibility of a BC repair rush.
@#1 they have an animation but it also displays an animation when a unit is being built instead of just making an upgrade.
|
That's true but not what i was referring to. Sometimes while watching a replay you'll see a similar animation to a yamato cannon building up energy at the tip of a battlecruiser but green colored. Its very noticeable, I've just never seen it during normal play
|
United States2231 Posts
On September 10 2010 10:31 lu_cid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:26 avilo wrote:
I really do not like how nowadays threads are aimed at how to change the game, rather than play the game better =/
and btw, i applaud your slick naming of this thread to make it appear it's not a "balance thread." You name it "why it's not an imba issue" and then the thread is about things that appear imbalanced to you.
... This... We're not in beta anymore. I don't think the game can be perfectly balanced at the moment without changing it drastically. Maybe they'll balance it after an expansion is released.
Wrong.
This is an online game.
Balance changes happen well after beta ends.
Better yet, we're in the early stages of retail, the prime time for balance changes to be made.
This is the time when Blizzard needs to be making core changes (like SCV auto-repair and creep mechanics) and leave these 5 second build time changes for later tweaks.
SC2 is very well balanced, but there ARE issues and it makes little sense for Blizzard or anybody else to ignore them and act like they will go away.
Raelcuns post hits the right idea, 5 seconds here or 2 damage there isn't going to do anything, the base of the issues need to be addressed, not every individual unit that benefits from them.
|
The most urgent one I would say is the auto repair. It makes planetary fortress unbreakable, aswell as repairing Thors/Bc's extreamply powerfull. They should be auto targeted when they repair.
|
Well, I am actually at the point to say that PvT is swinging into P's favor as the Metagame develops... a few weeks ago many P's struggled against T, but now with more Phoenix play and better timings for expanding and engaging the Terran HAS TO get perfect EMP's off or he HAS TO micro vikings better... Although in theory all the mentioned facts might be true, I experienced that P's are adapting to all the T's options better and better and at the same time T gameplay development kind of stays at one basic level... but thats only my feeling and opinion on that. Terrans are SO OP is no fact for me anymore and with the upcoming patch it will not getting easier at all.
|
United States159 Posts
I for one, see no reason not to remove sensor towers all together or change their ability.
Like pushing back the fog of war in a certain (tested) radius, it would be powerful but less so compared to the semi-maphack they are now.
I have considered a number of ways to add/change tech structures, however, I don't really know what would be a sensible alteration. What compounds this is that I feel they should be the most adaptable/dynamic race when it comes to their tech paths.
Removing auto-casting is something I've wanted for awhile, not because of terran, it would simply increase the skill ceiling a bit. I would like to see some form it remain in regards to baneling mines and possibly other things I haven't thought of.
|
About a sensor tower change, I think that modifying its permanent detection to a periodic one could be a good idea. Instead of seeing units through the fog at all times, the tower would autocast a "Scanner Sweep" every 5 seconds or so and show those scary exclamation marks. Given the speed of zerglings and mutalisks, a potential 5 second delay is huge; especially if the opposing player is able to know when the sweep is done. However, this does not encourage drop play with medivacs in TvT or TvP (assuming Warp Prism speed isn't researched), at least not more than with the current situation.
I'll also have to agree on the target priority issue. It's extremely frustrating to see thors or hydralisks shooting at medivacs while they need to be hitting the marines, and even more when zerglings are running around a thors surrounded by repairing SCVs.
And for the tech lab not showing when it's researching, I've been wondering why there's no animation for that ever since the start of the beta. You should be able to tell when your opponent is getting stim or cloak =/
Overall, a well constructed post with interesting points. Your idea of making it necessary for medivacs to have an upgrade to transport definitely deserves some attention; but I'll refrain on commenting on it due to my relative inexperience.
EDIT: Spelling.
|
Doko basically just said what I was about to say.
Sensor Towers need to just be removed because they detract so much from the whole idea of map control, map awareness and scouting which are all huge ideas in a fog of war type RTS. They're just... a bad idea.
Medivacs should have their abilities divorced and it'd be great to see the Medic and Dropship as separate units rather than combined. However, this would have some very serious implications depending on how quickly you could get Medics out, infantry would have to be retuned for that. It'd be a very difficult thing to implement. Also, Stim'ed Marauders kill buildings way too quickly for people to respond in many situations which makes the ease of acquiring "drops" even more ridiculous.
And as Doko said, just limit the number of SCV's that are able to repair a unit. There's really no reason that a Terran player should be able to repair units or structures that quickly.
|
Good read. Always thought about the medivac as a problem. Drop should be an upgrade for 200/200 just like Overlord drop too.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
For a Terran imbalance thread, this one is really really well done.
|
A Medivac heals 13.5 HPS.
A Stalker deals 10/14 (Armoured) damage every 1.44 seconds. (A DPS of 6.94r/9.7r).
This gives a problem where 2 Stalkers (250/100) against 1 Marine and 1 Medivac would lose because the Stalker's combined DPS is (6.94 x 2 ) 13.88r meaning that against the 13.5 HPS the Stalkers are dealing (13.88r - 13.5 hps) 0.388r DPS. Against a Marine without combat shields (45 hp) this would cause the 2 Stalkers (note we're dealing with 250/100 against 150/100) to take 118.4 seconds to kill the Marine (assuming the Medivac never runs out of energy). If you were to target the Medivac first, however, it would take (150/17.4(-2[+1 armour reducing 1 damage from both Stalker attacks])) 8.6 seconds followed by a further 3.2 seconds to kill the Marine for a total of 11.8 seconds. In this 11.8 seconds, however, the Marine is dealing 6.97 dps (factoring in the -1 damage from the Stalker armour). In the 11.8 seconds it takes to kill both the Medivac/Marine [assuming you target the Medivac first) the Marine deals 82.2 damage.
This is the problem I find, as Protoss, against Terran. If both armies are equal the Protoss gets absolutely crushed because of the insane healing of the medivac. With proper control, from the Terran player, it takes 3 Stalkers to do enough damage to negate the healing effect of 1 Medivac against 1 Marine. While the Medivac is healing, however, the Terran army is at full strength because it's not losing numbers.
As Protoss, therefore, you are forced into a stalling game where any early pressure/drops can easily tilt the flow of the game into the Terran's favour. Today in the GSL we saw Tester against JSL and in game 1 (on Scrap Station) Tester was ahead in food the entire game and had teched to both Colossi and High Templar, yet because of the strength of the Terran army and the food difference not being as big as it needed to be Tester could never attack head on until a drop was made in his base - at which point it was either a "go for the kill" or "retreat and lose the game". A game where you are ahead the entire time should not ever result in a stalemate where you cannot kill your opponent after he makes numerous mistakes because of the strength of a healing unit.
Oh, and that was a Marine. A Marauder can kill 2 Stalkers and bring a third Stalker to 20~ health without Stimpack and the Medivac healing it.
|
I actually rarely use sensor towers myself. I rely more on my game sense and unit positioning, and no its not a brag comment. If you watch alot of top level T, like gom stuff u don't see sensor towers until really late like 3 baseish since you need every once of resources towards units.
|
On September 10 2010 10:10 drewbie.root wrote:
you forgot planetary fortresses :D
also i wouldn't complain if medvacs were 125 minerals 125 gas, i think that would be reasonable
I think this is a nice suggestion. Medics in SC:BW were 50/25. Medivacs are more than double that, did you really think the drop capability comes "for free"? Since dropships were 100/100 in BW, I think the cost could be increase a bit more, but dropping capability is certainly not free at the moment.
|
On September 10 2010 10:33 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:30 taffy wrote:
So basically you're saying terran is overpowered, but the way to fix it is to make them click more?
Why not just fix the broken units?
Does calling it "overtuned" help you get more buy-in from terrans? In my opinion Imbalance and Overpowered and many other common terms means that the unit numbers are wrong. Yes my definition might not be completely correct but we're dealing with different things here. I'm not even accusing the terrans of having stupidly powerful units because I think the units themselves for the most part are fine with a few minor tweaks needed here and there the same as Zerg and Protoss. But some of their core mechanics need some work so all of this whining and effort going into fixing the marauder damage numbers etc etc could be fixed in more elegant solutions that would fix more of the units at the same time by changing some of these core mechanics. Why so confrontational? If you disagree with me spell out why.
I understand the idea behind the day-9 style "lets not call it imbalance".
When you want to sit down and work on your game, dwelling on unit balance won't help you. Problem solving will. When you take the same approach when using your community status to widely distribute an opinion about the state of the game, you risk adding legitimacy to this idea that everyone is just whining, and that things are pretty good the way they are. This has started to bother me.
Just call it what it is. It's not that big a deal.
|
I don't mind the tech labs and auto-repair on thors much. What does bugs me a lot is how hard it is to kill a CC, even when you have a large army attacking it. And concussive shells, argh...
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On September 10 2010 10:48 zomgtossrush wrote:
I actually rarely use sensor towers myself. I rely more on my game sense and unit positioning, and no its not a brag comment. If you watch alot of top level T, like gom stuff u don't see sensor towers until really late like 3 baseish since you need every once of resources towards units.
Sensor Towers are really a late game issue, but it becomes a very serious issue.
Especially with all the Terrans who've obviously never played Zerg suggesting that Zergs need to "flank, drop, nydus, etc. etc. etc. theorycraftedbullshit etc." even though all of that is completely nullified by a pair of sensor towers.
Also on tiny maps like Steppes of War, 2 Sensor Towers literally covers 2/3 of the map.
On September 10 2010 10:43 Jermstuddog wrote:
Raelcuns post hits the right idea, 5 seconds here or 2 damage there isn't going to do anything, the base of the issues need to be addressed, not every individual unit that benefits from them.
Can't agree with this more.
|
I love this "l2p" argument we're having here.
How about this...LEARN TO DEAL WITH 4 POOL WHEN POOL WAS 150 MINERALS. See what I did there? Everyone who has ever played sc/bw for a significant amount know about how pool use to be 150 min when i came out and how it had to be patched later on b/c obviously it was unfair.
Now lets think about now. "Learn to play better zerg!" Seriously, think about what you just said there. Don't just talk shit and not back it up.
|
well written! not so sure on all your suggestions to improve, but i definitely agree with your core points
|
I agree that it's a combination of things that makes Terran the strongest race at the moment. I wonder if it's possible for Blizzard to make the necessary changes to the mechanics in a live environment? Something gives me the feeling they are trying to get by on small tweaks to numbers.
|
I totally agree with all the OP's points, the medivac, i think needs a price increase, or (imo a better choice), a speed reduction to somewhere between 2.25 and 2.75 (it's current speed). It would really only effect drops, because mm moves at 2.25 (and you really want the medivacs in the back, in a fight, if i'm not mistaken)
The tech lab upgrades...i don't mind so much, a lot of the starport upgrades are rather unused. But they definitely SHOULD be visible. It's not even a total giveaway, since as the OP mentioned, a whole shit load of stuff can be researched through tech labs. But being able to scout banshee cloak is the most important thing, althought it could (AND SHOULD) be abused and faked against protoss.
The scv priority should really be fixed, it's an impedement of players' ability to micro against thors or PF and scvs.
Another problem i have, a general one, is that fighting units when a-moved will not move to engage enemy units if there are hostile buildings in range. This is a friggin unnessary pain in the ass! Watching your stalkers in pvp attack pylons as the game deciding battle rages on is retarded. When you go to box those stalkers and a-move them again, what do you know? They target the buildings again. You have to MANUALLY MOVE the stalkers in range of the enemy units, and then a-move. IMO this is almost as bad as the PF priority issue.
|
On September 10 2010 10:51 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:48 zomgtossrush wrote:
I actually rarely use sensor towers myself. I rely more on my game sense and unit positioning, and no its not a brag comment. If you watch alot of top level T, like gom stuff u don't see sensor towers until really late like 3 baseish since you need every once of resources towards units. Sensor Towers are really a late game issue, but it becomes a very serious issue. Especially with all the Terrans who've obviously never played Zerg suggesting that Zergs need to "flank, drop, nydus, etc. etc. etc. theorycraftedbullshit etc." even though all of that is completely nullified by a pair of sensor towers. Also on tiny maps like Steppes of War, 2 Sensor Towers literally covers 2/3 of the map. Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:43 Jermstuddog wrote:
Raelcuns post hits the right idea, 5 seconds here or 2 damage there isn't going to do anything, the base of the issues need to be addressed, not every individual unit that benefits from them. Can't agree with this more.
Agreed with this, Sensor Towers are really strong, just under evaluated as it's rarely used by players, but they're really cheap and super effective.
|
On September 10 2010 10:43 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:31 lu_cid wrote:On September 10 2010 10:26 avilo wrote:
I really do not like how nowadays threads are aimed at how to change the game, rather than play the game better =/
and btw, i applaud your slick naming of this thread to make it appear it's not a "balance thread." You name it "why it's not an imba issue" and then the thread is about things that appear imbalanced to you.
... This... We're not in beta anymore. I don't think the game can be perfectly balanced at the moment without changing it drastically. Maybe they'll balance it after an expansion is released. Wrong. This is an online game. Balance changes happen well after beta ends. Better yet, we're in the early stages of retail, the prime time for balance changes to be made. This is the time when Blizzard needs to be making core changes (like SCV auto-repair and creep mechanics) and leave these 5 second build time changes for later tweaks. SC2 is very well balanced, but there ARE issues and it makes little sense for Blizzard or anybody else to ignore them and act like they will go away. Raelcuns post hits the right idea, 5 seconds here or 2 damage there isn't going to do anything, the base of the issues need to be addressed, not every individual unit that benefits from them.
Balance discussion wouldn't be so contentious on the forums if blizzard wasn't sitting on their changes till who knows when. I get the feeling blizzard and leaders in the SC2 scene are being far too timid with balance issues, because of the huge amount of money, tourneys, sponsors, ect. And because of the ridiculous proprietary greed of a no-lan B-net 2.0, otherwise current tourneys could opt to use the same version of SC2 through-out the entire tourney simply by not upgrading if blizzard patches.
I've been a BW spectator since the first TSL on team liquid, I don't even own a copy of SC2. But I feel there are major problems with the game balance. Everyone wants to be polite and not be accused of "whining". And especially people involved in the business side want to encourage positive outlooks and say "players are barely starting to figure out whats possible in SC2; it's so new". But I really think the current state is pretty bad, and the fact balance discussion is such a source of contention is a symptom of that.
|
On September 10 2010 11:08 omnigol wrote:
Balance discussion wouldn't be so contentious on the forums if blizzard wasn't sitting on their changes till who knows when. I get the feeling blizzard and leaders in the SC2 scene are being far too timid with balance issues, because of the huge amount of money, tourneys, sponsors, ect. And because of the ridiculous proprietary greed of a no-lan B-net 2.0, otherwise current tourneys could opt to use the same version of SC2 through-out the entire tourney simply by not upgrading if blizzard patches.
I've been a BW spectator since the first TSL on team liquid, I don't even own a copy of SC2. But I feel there are major problems with the game balance. Everyone wants to be polite and not be accused of "whining". And especially people involved in the business side want to encourage positive outlooks and say "players are barely starting to figure out whats possible in SC2; it's so new". But I really think the current state is pretty bad, and the fact balance discussion is such a source of contention is a symptom of that.
The smallest changes often make the most dramatic changes.
If a Stalkers damage was changed from 10/14 to 10/15 with +1/+2 on attack upgrades it would equally trade with a Marauder, in comparison to now where 1 Marauder beats a Stalker by a large margin until the +1 attack upgrade is researched by the Protoss player.
If a Zealots damage was increased by 1 per attack (total of 2) before upgrades a Zealot would 2 shot, instead of 3 shot, Zerglings before any upgrades rolled out and it would be horribly overpowered in the early game.
|
this is stupid. Although i agree terran is imba I definitely don't agree with these reasons. For example the medivac rant - the races can be different and certain areas can be stronger than others but that doesn't make it imbalanced. You have to look at the races holistically. Protoss can warp in units anywhere with a pylon while terran has to walk there, but that doesn't mean there is a problem with protoss. Both warp in and the medivac increase the mobility of the infantry units to separate their role with those of the slower more powerful units like the siege tank.
tl;dr look at the design philosophy of the races, then look at your post
|
A lot of the recent GomTV games, most notably the TvPs, have been dominated by 4-8 marauders in 1-2 medivacs being dropped into the Protoss main/nat/3rd whenever the protoss tries to move out.
Up until this point the Medivac's drop ability has certainly seen usage, but it's been relatively limited compared to its potential. It looks like we're finally starting to see Terran players making great use of it, and thus it'll be interesting to see what people make of your suggestion in a month or two, after everyone's seen many examples of Terrans abusing their incredible mobility with small medivac harassment (and doom drops) in countless games.
|
On September 10 2010 10:51 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:43 Jermstuddog wrote:
Raelcuns post hits the right idea, 5 seconds here or 2 damage there isn't going to do anything, the base of the issues need to be addressed, not every individual unit that benefits from them. Can't agree with this more.
sadly they missed opportunity to do big changes in beta. its obvious that certain stuff is problematic and that the dynamics we had between the races in bw are mostly nonexistant.
but blizz seems to be very stubborn to force their starting model through.and i guess not much will change till the expansion hits.
|
WOW, removing the initial ability of medivacs to transport and make it researchable is the most far-fetched, (yeah let's call it far-fetched), thing ever.
I mean why should there be a unit that is just an air-healer?
it makes no sense to make it look like the zerg mechanic (where your overlords can load/unload units only when u have a lair/hive)
another common mistake is taking the overlord/warp prism/medivac trio and start comparing units to one another. this is not a game of unit1 vs unit2 vs unit 3 it's about terran vs zerg vs protoss. Taking a certain unit out of context and not talking of how the specific unit interacts with other allied and enemy units is WRONG.
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.
So what if alot of terrans own in lower leagues?
Protoss was OP in sc1:bw, and the D/D- divisions were full of protoss noobs. Once the level gets higher, the skill improves and nature takes it's course. He who does not learn from past mistakes is condemned to repeat them.
Another point is the following:
SC2:WOL is just a part of SC2 as a game. Looking back on SC:BW, is SC:original ballanced? Probably not. Is SC:BW balanced. Definitely the best RTS in that aspect. Even so, the same voices were yelling back in SC:BW that protoss is OP, the same voices that now yell terran is OP.
Conclusion:
The release version is not out for 2 months yet, and every1 assumes the game is figured out already, they make diagnostics about the state of the game and about race balance. We see interviews of players like Tester, Sen, Maka saying that they think a certain race is slightly favoured now. (they have HUGE understanding of the game). And then we see a bunch of n00bs who are silver league at most making a decisive verdict that a certain race is OP, backed up by more n00bs and their idiotic comments, and defended by some other n00bs who play that race in particular.
When you lose to a certain race/build/opening at least keep your BM to yourself. Give it to your ingame opponent IdrA-style. My opinion is that a lot of people come here to discard their frustrations, make false assumptions after losing, when they don't think clear.
These people don't really care about true balance. They just want their race stronger. PERIOD.
Not that i am playing terran, but did any1 mention how hard is to micro MMM ball versus storms/collosi? Or to deal with those pesky ultralisks? Or to deal with fungal/banelings? Or to have your enemy move towards you, and if you steam they just retreat and you waste medivac energy? so on ....................
Of course, if you a-move into a stimmed terran MMM ball and use no abilities you get owned. But then it's not you who blundered, it's the might of the terran overpowered ball.
|
For tech labs what about specialization?
So if you make tech lab on barracks then lift for factory, it doesn't immediately recognize. There is a short period (equal to tech lab build time) where tech lab doesn't function. So you still don't have to pay for another tech lab but the build time is still there.
|
Terran simply have too many options at the moment, in almost every respect. Though to be honest what I want more than Terran to lose those options is for the Protoss and Zerg races to get more options in turn. Protoss are almost there already, just due to the versatility and mobility offered by their Warpgates.
I'll say I like that Terran has a lot of options to play interesting games - That's good! I like seeing players have options and being creative with those options makes for fun and engaging play. What I don't like seeing is all of these interesting tactics Terrans have available being totally neglected in favor of "Build Marauders & Medivacs. Stim, kite, win." At least in the TvP matchup, I think just tweaking the Marauder would fix most of the issues.
Zerg has its own problems which probably can't be directly addressed without tweaks to Zerg units themselves, but at least if the Marauder were toned down some it might begin to address some of the issues in the TvZ matchup as well.
|
i completely agree. particularly techlab and medivacs,
|
Honestly this is well written, but I don't exactly agree.
someone mentioned the whole tech lab animation to me earlier, I always thought unless they're switching around it's very apparent which route terran is taking. Though I can see why people stress this, but a majority of players I've played play MMM because of it's quickness and sheer abilities, rather than mech which can't be dropped as easily nor healed.
Sensor tower looks like it could be OP on a bigger map with more wide open spaces, but I'd rather they remove this AND xel'naga watch towers (lol zerg flanking bais)
Medivacs are kind of up in the air for me, considering most of the time you can figure out a way to snipe them, (don't know how this works in very large army situations) I would expect this to not come as much of a factor as people are making it to be. One suggestion I could make is stop allowing medivacs to be double produced (make them tech lab only, why is the starport the only building that can produce two basic units with reactor?). Considering Marauders cost so little gas, terrans should think about making these and come out less often, rather than mass drops everywhere.
SCVs are kind of a no situation to me. They do heal thors quite a bit, and repair everything (taking skill off) but at the same time, I feel like they still cost money, they still can die, and most of all they're doing what blizzard wanted. Blizzard wanted to remove extraneous apm reqs for normalized play among more casual players (I think) so they didn't want people to have to use extra apm on stuff like repairing. I don't feel that scvs have broke any game I couldn't have won, or won any battles for the terran. I would say the ability to mule up after an allin might be deadlier considering they can afford to make tons of mistakes with macro, versus zerg (who I play) can't recover by a few clicks.
|
On September 10 2010 11:15 MindRush wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
WOW, removing the initial ability of medivacs to transport and make it researchable is the most far-fetched, (yeah let's call it far-fetched), thing ever.
I mean why should there be a unit that is just an air-healer?
it makes no sense to make it look like the zerg mechanic (where your overlords can load/unload units only when u have a lair/hive)
another common mistake is taking the overlord/warp prism/medivac trio and start comparing units to one another. this is not a game of unit1 vs unit2 vs unit 3 it's about terran vs zerg vs protoss. Taking a certain unit out of context and not talking of how the specific unit interacts with other allied and enemy units is WRONG.
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.
So what if alot of terrans own in lower leagues?
Protoss was OP in sc1:bw, and the D/D- divisions were full of protoss noobs. Once the level gets higher, the skill improves and nature takes it's course. He who does not learn from past mistakes is condemned to repeat them.
Another point is the following:
SC2:WOL is just a part of SC2 as a game. Looking back on SC:BW, is SC:original ballanced? Probably not. Is SC:BW balanced. Definitely the best RTS in that aspect. Even so, the same voices were yelling back in SC:BW that protoss is OP, the same voices that now yell terran is OP.
Conclusion:
The release version is not out for 2 months yet, and every1 assumes the game is figured out already, they make diagnostics about the state of the game and about race balance. We see interviews of players like Tester, Sen, Maka saying that they think a certain race is slightly favoured now. (they have HUGE understanding of the game). And then we see a bunch of n00bs who are silver league at most making a decisive verdict that a certain race is OP, backed up by more n00bs and their idiotic comments, and defended by some other n00bs who play that race in particular.
When you lose to a certain race/build/opening at least keep your BM to yourself. Give it to your ingame opponent IdrA-style. My opinion is that a lot of people come here to discard their frustrations, make false assumptions after losing, when they don't think clear.
These people don't really care about true balance. They just want their race stronger. PERIOD.
Not that i am playing terran, but did any1 mention how hard is to micro MMM ball versus storms/collosi? Or to deal with those pesky ultralisks? Or to deal with fungal/banelings? Or to have your enemy move towards you, and if you steam they just retreat and you waste medivac energy? so on ....................
Of course, if you a-move into a stimmed terran MMM ball and use no abilities you get owned. But then it's not you who blundered, it's the might of the terran overpowered ball.
Started out good, but that last paragraph almost killed it.
|
On September 10 2010 11:15 MindRush wrote:
WOW, removing the initial ability of medivacs to transport and make it researchable is the most far-fetched, (yeah let's call it far-fetched), thing ever.
I mean why should there be a unit that is just an air-healer?
it makes no sense to make it look like the zerg mechanic (where your overlords can load/unload units only when u have a lair/hive)
another common mistake is taking the overlord/warp prism/medivac trio and start comparing units to one another. this is not a game of unit1 vs unit2 vs unit 3 it's about terran vs zerg vs protoss. Taking a certain unit out of context and not talking of how the specific unit interacts with other allied and enemy units is WRONG.
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.
So what if alot of terrans own in lower leagues?
Protoss was OP in sc1:bw, and the D/D- divisions were full of protoss noobs. Once the level gets higher, the skill improves and nature takes it's course. He who does not learn from past mistakes is condemned to repeat them.
Another point is the following:
SC2:WOL is just a part of SC2 as a game. Looking back on SC:BW, is SC:original ballanced? Probably not. Is SC:BW balanced. Definitely the best RTS in that aspect. Even so, the same voices were yelling back in SC:BW that protoss is OP, the same voices that now yell terran is OP.
Conclusion:
The release version is not out for 2 months yet, and every1 assumes the game is figured out already, they make diagnostics about the state of the game and about race balance. We see interviews of players like Tester, Sen, Maka saying that they think a certain race is slightly favoured now. (they have HUGE understanding of the game). And then we see a bunch of n00bs who are silver league at most making a decisive verdict that a certain race is OP, backed up by more n00bs and their idiotic comments, and defended by some other n00bs who play that race in particular.
When you lose to a certain race/build/opening at least keep your BM to yourself. Give it to your ingame opponent IdrA-style. My opinion is that a lot of people come here to discard their frustrations, make false assumptions after losing, when they don't think clear.
These people don't really care about true balance. They just want their race stronger. PERIOD.
Not that i am playing terran, but did any1 mention how hard is to micro MMM ball versus storms/collosi? Or to deal with those pesky ultralisks? Or to deal with fungal/banelings? Or to have your enemy move towards you, and if you steam they just retreat and you waste medivac energy? so on ....................
Of course, if you a-move into a stimmed terran MMM ball and use no abilities you get owned. But then it's not you who blundered, it's the might of the terran overpowered ball.
I didn't know having 15 zerg out of the top 50 (by points from sc2ranks, 6 out of top 20) was considered dominating O.o. Yes, it may be ranked by points, but assuming Korea is Zerg nation is stupid. 4 Z out of top 20 in Taiwan, 2 Z out of 20 in SEA. People need to stop living in Beta phase 1.
Are there more terran players than zerg players? yes, but that shouldn't influence high level numbers/pros (that much), because they choose their race based on their play style, not b/c it was in single player mode.
Everyone agrees with you that it is too early, but people are just giving out suggestion that maybe Blizzard will see (yeah, like 5% chance of seeing it, but that's better than 0...they do actually read....).
|
sensor towers are like paper and cost a bunch of gas and your opponent can see where they are....
why are threads like this still being made when we know there a patch coming out that could change a lot?
|
On September 10 2010 11:19 King K. Rool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 11:15 MindRush wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
WOW, removing the initial ability of medivacs to transport and make it researchable is the most far-fetched, (yeah let's call it far-fetched), thing ever.
I mean why should there be a unit that is just an air-healer?
it makes no sense to make it look like the zerg mechanic (where your overlords can load/unload units only when u have a lair/hive)
another common mistake is taking the overlord/warp prism/medivac trio and start comparing units to one another. this is not a game of unit1 vs unit2 vs unit 3 it's about terran vs zerg vs protoss. Taking a certain unit out of context and not talking of how the specific unit interacts with other allied and enemy units is WRONG.
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.
So what if alot of terrans own in lower leagues?
Protoss was OP in sc1:bw, and the D/D- divisions were full of protoss noobs. Once the level gets higher, the skill improves and nature takes it's course. He who does not learn from past mistakes is condemned to repeat them.
Another point is the following:
SC2:WOL is just a part of SC2 as a game. Looking back on SC:BW, is SC:original ballanced? Probably not. Is SC:BW balanced. Definitely the best RTS in that aspect. Even so, the same voices were yelling back in SC:BW that protoss is OP, the same voices that now yell terran is OP.
Conclusion:
The release version is not out for 2 months yet, and every1 assumes the game is figured out already, they make diagnostics about the state of the game and about race balance. We see interviews of players like Tester, Sen, Maka saying that they think a certain race is slightly favoured now. (they have HUGE understanding of the game). And then we see a bunch of n00bs who are silver league at most making a decisive verdict that a certain race is OP, backed up by more n00bs and their idiotic comments, and defended by some other n00bs who play that race in particular.
When you lose to a certain race/build/opening at least keep your BM to yourself. Give it to your ingame opponent IdrA-style. My opinion is that a lot of people come here to discard their frustrations, make false assumptions after losing, when they don't think clear.
These people don't really care about true balance. They just want their race stronger. PERIOD.
Not that i am playing terran, but did any1 mention how hard is to micro MMM ball versus storms/collosi? Or to deal with those pesky ultralisks? Or to deal with fungal/banelings? Or to have your enemy move towards you, and if you steam they just retreat and you waste medivac energy? so on ....................
Of course, if you a-move into a stimmed terran MMM ball and use no abilities you get owned. But then it's not you who blundered, it's the might of the terran overpowered ball.
Started out good, but that last paragraph almost killed it.
yeah, but it's true nevertheless
|
nice post
I agree that T is not as OP as some might say... It's just that T has so many perks and imo some upgrades are too cheap...
|
On September 10 2010 11:26 EleanorRIgby wrote:
sensor towers are like paper and cost a bunch of gas and your opponent can see where they are....
why are threads like this still being made when we know there a patch coming out that could change a lot?
simple answer for a simple question, most people don't believe the changes will make that much a difference.
|
yeah, I think the medivac is a really dumb idea. It makes drop play standard instead of a surprise. Way less fun to watch or play.
|
[B]On September 10 2010 09:52 iCCup.Raelcun wrote Issue #1: This thingNot even going to mention how you can't tell if it's upgrading or not.
I might be crazy, but I'm pretty sure the green part of the tech lab lights up when it's upgrading.
|
The Terran problem is a problem of their being the most "evolved" of all the races. I know people will try and say "SC2 is not SC:BW so don't attempt to compare the two", but I maintain that comparison is necessary in order to better understand the decisions made when designing the races. (I'll avoid doubling up on any points already made by OP)
So let's talk about a few things that were possible problems for Terrans.
* The most obvious one was that Supply depots were commonly used as a part of a wall in conjunction with a building that could be lifted. Units would enter/leave via the building lifting. A lifted building cannot produce units which meant that you had to be very careful about timing your lifts. This is no longer the case since supply depots can be lowered.
Vulnerability has been reduced (no interruptions to build time, quick raise/lower vs lift/land) and micro has been reduced (lift/land is finickier than raide/lower).
* Comsat station is now Orbital command. In SC:BW you would sometimes attempt to DT rush or Lurker rush a Terran opponent. In most cases they would have a comsat station which would be the first target, you take that out and he is forced to get Science vessels (long build time + expensive tech) or build turrets in order to detect (take down the SCVs before they can complete). Comsat stations have a third the health of a CC making them more vulnerable. Now in SC2 if you want to take out Terran's scanning ability, you have to take down the entire OC, in most cases by the time you are able to attempt such an attack, they already have a second OC anyway. The OC also gives you Mules/Supply drops without having to upgrade anything. Comsat required academy, academy required barracks which meant you had to wait for two buildings to complete. Now in SC2, barracks is the only requirement. The net result is that in order to take down Terran scans, you have to pretty much be in a position to win the game anyway. The only race that can take down scans is Terran themselves with EMP to the OC.
Again, vulnerability has been reduced (lower tech, higher HP) and micro has been reduced (single OC hotkey can invoke more abilities).
Many possible proposals for changing the above situation. e.g. Change abilities to have independent timers (reduces spam), force upgrades/further requirements to unlock additional abilities (e.g. engineering bay unlocks supply drops), change scanner sweep to be a calldown (like the other two abilities) such that a small doodad is visible and attackable (e.g. air attack only). The last point would provide a means for reducing the impact of such a sure fire ability which cannot be countered - turrets/spore/cannons would be effective against scanner sweep.
* Nukes. They are now separated from the CC meaning you aren't limited by the number of CCs you build and they don't compete with scanner sweep anymore. They also no longer take up supply whereas in SC:BW building a nuke required 8 supply. Lets not forget that they are cheaper than their BW counterpart and take less time to build, and with multiple ghost academies, you can have many nukes up pretty easily, especially considering that the ghost academies are cheaper than silos (gas wise), take less time to build (without factoring the CC even!) and have more than twice the HP.
Vulnerability has been reduced (high HP building, shorter build time, no supply blocking, shorter tech tree) and micro remains the same I guess.
* EMP. What used to be a science vessel ability at a range of 8, has now been given to a far stealthier unit (even without cloak it is harder to spot than a big floating sphere) which can be cast from a range of 10 and does not require any upgrades.
Seems to be a similar theme here, vulnerability has been reduced (stealthier unit, no upgrade cost, shorter tech tree) and micro has been reduced (longer casting range).
* PDD. This is the most WTF ability IMO. How a completely ranged attacking race has such an ability to reduce the effectiveness of Zerg (Protoss have fewer units which are affected by it) was seen as balanced is beyond comprehension. The only ranged Zerg unit not affected by PDD is a summoned unit (Infested Terran) and only Zerg have no means of rendering it useless (Terran have EMP and Protoss have Feedback). Right now PDD is underused, but give it time and it'll be seen as a completely game breaking mechanic. Muta magic box gots nothing on this.
This post is getting too long so I'll leave it at that for the time being.
|
I have no idea why u guys are QQing with balance.
Look at the current SC2 top leagues and tournaments.
I don't see Terrans dominating.
The game is balanced out well, no need for major fix or altering game play.
|
I'm sorry what are you suggesting for #1?
I myself don't use sensor towers much, but I imagine they exist because terran can't afford to scan randomly anymore. If scanning didn't interrupt mules (or if instead, sensor towers could scan), the current form of sensor towers probably wouldn't be needed. Making the current tower feature cost energy wouldn't be horrible idea I think, except that if it cost energy instead of just a cool-down they might be fairly useless, since you could easily miss a drop without missing a "scan" depending on how long the cooldown was. If the ring still appeared to opponent, everyone would just drop right after the thing "scanned", and it would be useless.
Making medics prevents you from making vikings, or if not on a reactor prevents you from making ravens and banshees. All four units are incredibly powerful and useful in any situation. You know how terrans get by this? They make more starports. Tell your protoss buddies to make more robos if they're concerned making warp prisms will game-endedly delay their observer/colos/immortal. Not costing any gas makes warp prisms pretty cheap imo (compared to terran), since gas is the limiting factor in almost any time in the game. I'd gladly trade 100/100 for 200/0. Warp prisms can be proxy pylons too, just like medics also heal. It's not like terran magically gets extra stuff with their dropship where protoss doesn't. I'm not going to try to argue whether healing or proxy pylon is worth more, my point is just that the warp prism is imo equal to the medivac in usefulness/requiredness. All protoss builds should involve warp prisms to let them warp in stuff wherever. Pylons can be found/killed pretty easily, and you usually can't make one in your opponent's main past 2 minutes in.
I agree that it's gay it's so hard to snipe repairing scvs. Increasing their priority basically makes them useless during a fight, and only lets them heal after a fight (the way protoss shields regen). In Engine of War in campaign you needed to repair the Odin often. It had a shitload of hp but you still needed to repair it. Repairing scvs were auto-targetted in it, and they died so incredibly fast there was no point in trying to repair it during a fight. You had to just have your scvs follow it and only repair at the last second or after a fight, or your fragile little 45-hp workers died before they could repair 5 hp. I don't know if that's fair or balanced or whatever, I'm just saying changing repairing scv priority will have greater consequence than simply "fixing" the brokenness of not being able to target scvs. Making scvs that useless at repairing during a fight effectively makes any strategy involving thors and bcs infinitely less viable, making those units less useful. Is removing strategy in a big way to help balance in a small way a good idea? Consider also that this makes scvs stronger in another way as part of an all-in. Bringing scvs and putting them on autorepair will suddenly start saving the units they're repairing being shot. In some scenarios, the damage they'd absorb with their high priority 45 hp would be greater than the amount of hp they could have repaired in some period of time, such that the all-in was more effective thanks to this change, or atleast just as effective. This isn't that big of a deal for something like a bc or a thor which is easy to right click, but this works for all mechanical units. Individual hellions are harder to right click. What if terran brings all their scvs, half of them told to attack, the other half told to repair? Or in a situation involving some splash damage, all the scvs told to repair, to suddenly get in the way of enemy units and be attacked with high priority while repairing eachother. By this point the scale of what you'd need to right click would involve giving 1-3 units at a time their own target, and manually avoiding overkill on every single unit. This is impossible for a human at certain numbers. Is that situation more desireable than a single thor being hard to kill without focus fire?
|
On September 10 2010 11:30 Skeyser wrote:Show nested quote +[B]On September 10 2010 09:52 iCCup.Raelcun wrote Issue #1: This thingNot even going to mention how you can't tell if it's upgrading or not. I might be crazy, but I'm pretty sure the green part of the tech lab lights up when it's upgrading.
No, it always lights up.
|
On September 10 2010 11:15 MindRush wrote:
WOW, removing the initial ability of medivacs to transport and make it researchable is the most far-fetched, (yeah let's call it far-fetched), thing ever.
I mean why should there be a unit that is just an air-healer?
it makes no sense to make it look like the zerg mechanic (where your overlords can load/unload units only when u have a lair/hive)
another common mistake is taking the overlord/warp prism/medivac trio and start comparing units to one another. this is not a game of unit1 vs unit2 vs unit 3 it's about terran vs zerg vs protoss. Taking a certain unit out of context and not talking of how the specific unit interacts with other allied and enemy units is WRONG.
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.
So what if alot of terrans own in lower leagues?
Protoss was OP in sc1:bw, and the D/D- divisions were full of protoss noobs. Once the level gets higher, the skill improves and nature takes it's course. He who does not learn from past mistakes is condemned to repeat them.
Another point is the following:
SC2:WOL is just a part of SC2 as a game. Looking back on SC:BW, is SC:original ballanced? Probably not. Is SC:BW balanced. Definitely the best RTS in that aspect. Even so, the same voices were yelling back in SC:BW that protoss is OP, the same voices that now yell terran is OP.
Conclusion:
The release version is not out for 2 months yet, and every1 assumes the game is figured out already, they make diagnostics about the state of the game and about race balance. We see interviews of players like Tester, Sen, Maka saying that they think a certain race is slightly favoured now. (they have HUGE understanding of the game). And then we see a bunch of n00bs who are silver league at most making a decisive verdict that a certain race is OP, backed up by more n00bs and their idiotic comments, and defended by some other n00bs who play that race in particular.
When you lose to a certain race/build/opening at least keep your BM to yourself. Give it to your ingame opponent IdrA-style. My opinion is that a lot of people come here to discard their frustrations, make false assumptions after losing, when they don't think clear.
These people don't really care about true balance. They just want their race stronger. PERIOD.
Not that i am playing terran, but did any1 mention how hard is to micro MMM ball versus storms/collosi? Or to deal with those pesky ultralisks? Or to deal with fungal/banelings? Or to have your enemy move towards you, and if you steam they just retreat and you waste medivac energy? so on ....................
Of course, if you a-move into a stimmed terran MMM ball and use no abilities you get owned. But then it's not you who blundered, it's the might of the terran overpowered ball.
pretty sure it has been said many times in these forums that zerg is not dominating korea atm (lots of graphs and what not) haven't the exact links but just search zerg dominance or something into the search function. and why are sen,cehck and idra doing so well. simply because they are great players. with great mechanics and a great understanding of the game.
its not that terran is dominent in lower levels. its that players with the mechanics of lower level players are reaching higher levels of play just by playing terran race and using maybe 1-2 simple build orders (happens also with protoss 4 gate) because its so efficient and much harder to stop as other races then it is to pull off. it results in the T players sky rocketing to mid-top diamond. and often you see such players when their push fails they often dont know what to do after that and end up losing wuite conviningly.
hmm we have a bunch of n00bs saying that the game is imbalanced. yes infact their are alot of lower level players who think something is imbalanced, but its easy to determine the legitimate claims and the ridicullus (such as spine crawler being OP for being able to move)
but at the same note we have plenty of high level players putting in their two pieces of why a certian race is UP or OP. (masterasia's thread for one, he was 5th best zerg in US when he posted it.) are you saying that he's a n00b and doesn't know what hes talking about?
about your MMM troubles. yes it is hard using tier 1/1.5 units against late game units. damn All terran players should be able to beat every unit with that composition of MMM. honestly your complaining how hard it is to use MMM against storm, something DESIGNED to defeat such composistions? and colosus DESIGNED to deal splash damage to such composistions. and ultralisk as buggy as it is is DESIGNED to be a tank unit to get in your face dealing splash damage to your composition. and heaven forbid we decide to reatreat making a T player waste a "steam" that shouldn't be allowed at all!
and any other race should not be able to A-move into Terrans A-move army's.
people do not want certain races stronger then others, we want a balanced game so it is an enjoyable to watch E-sport.
constantly seeing the same thing EVERY game that has Terran in it is no enjoyable.
we want to see innovation, exiting micro battles that switch the momentum of the game. brilliant tech switchs at crucial times.
OP raises some issues that are preventing said plays.
sensor towers, with 2 of them NO drops can go on that will change the outcome of a battle, NO epic surprise flanks. with leads to a boring style of play.
and SCV auto repair is by far the worst display of AI programming ever. they can hide behind a planetary fortress meaning focusing on them is impossible meaning that fortress wont fall.
many problems with this game atm, but blizz is more concerned with battlecruisers needing a nerf of 2 damage!
|
Apologies for stating what might have already been said, but making drop researchable for medivacs could essentially get rid of the LT ledge imbalance ;p Of course it's horrible to balance based around a map, but it's the first thing that popped into my head when I thought of medivac drops(which is a good idea)
|
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards..
|
On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards..
If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture.
|
United States24664 Posts
On September 10 2010 09:52 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
So basically we have a cheap spammable tower from pretty much any time forward once you get past the early game that gives terran the ability to know when you're trying to outmaneuver them. They are supposed to be the slow race easy to outmaneuver and abuse their immobility but this does not work when they know it's coming without even having to spend scans.
This was true in pvt in sc1.
Why do you say this for sc2? Perhaps some terran strategies and styles make that statement too but it isn't really true in an overall sense. It basically comes down to whether or not tanks are being used and how many... and tanks are often used in small (or no) quantities.
|
mmm... i agree but i still have to say that this adds to the imbalances that is already apparent with ranged/splash units in general. Helion are underrated but their splash makes any combination and number of lings useless and thor splash makes zerg play in a very predictable style because there is only one way to deal with it. Marauders are just very imbalanced and their HP needs to be reduced and also the effect of stim needs to be nerfed for marauders or stim should just be removed for the marauder. Terrans can live without marauders stimming...
The exponential increase in damage output of ball armies of terran just overwhelm the zerg's square root function power of their armies.
Illustration of my point would be:
X = time interval of 3 minutes
T: 2 ^ X
Z: Square root of (5 * X).
Doesn't take long for T to overwhelm zerg after early game.
|
On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards..
well given past patchs, blizzard is more likely to nerf things then to buff them. then after their done nerfing they'll nerf some more.
i think no one will argue that bringing zerg and protoss up to par with teran is a bad idea. its just for blizz its easier to nerf stuff already in the game, then it is to add stuff to make things better.
|
Pretty good post... I am not sure you really hit on *all* the problems but it is good to see suggestions in a non whiny post.
I think auto repair is a little to easy and I also think techlabs could be changed.. but I think we are too far into the game to change who and what produces whatever. Do not forget this is not beta. The framework is there and has been published. The key is taking what they have done and balancing it without really changing the game.
|
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.
|
I've noticed that Terran infantry clump up *way way* better than Zerg or Protoss units (with the exception of zerglings). As a result, they do way more damage in mid-sized battles, because they get more units firing in their arc. This becomes a liability in the later game, especially vs Protoss, but it's one of their power sources in the early- and mid-game. I think increasing the collision radius on marines, with a compensatory radius increase in fungal growth, baneling explosions, and psi storm (and something to stop hydras from being destroyed by the new storm), would go a long way.
|
On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture.
I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me.
|
On September 10 2010 11:52 TyrantPotato wrote:
well given past patchs, blizzard is more likely to nerf things then to buff them. then after their done nerfing they'll nerf some more.
i think no one will argue that bringing zerg and protoss up to par with teran is a bad idea. its just for blizz its easier to nerf stuff already in the game, then it is to add stuff to make things better.
Well, 1.1 has both buffs and nerfs in it. But ... they're focusing on tweaking values, not gameplay ... which seems lazy/safe.
|
On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me.
Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran).
|
So the terran problems ARE a balance issue?
i however do favour the CD on sensor towers, the proposal seems very reasonable for the ability it provides. a separate animation for upgrades been made in techlab seems good too. i hope they do get implemented. as another poster said, the points you make are very valid but the thread title is very misleading.
|
What's this joke, Terran the race with the most ability to "tech switch" ? Are you serious ? When you have alreayd 10 raxes, no matter what kind of tech switch you might need you're stuck playing with a largely bio composed army.
The race actually able to tech switch like wtf are zergs. Once a spire, hydra den and roach warren are down, at any point of time it could be ANYTHING coming out of the next larva set. When you see a terran with 10 raxes, hey guess what, he's going to make marauders and marines, and that'll be what you'll have to worry about.
|
On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran).
Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically.
|
The medivacs from the alpha build of SC2 were suppose to only be dropships. The Healing was an upgrade you can research turning the Dropship -> Medivac
|
LOL@making medivacs have to upgrade to drop. P is already at least even with T in PvT, that would just completely ruin the matchup.
|
On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me.
I know several casuals IRL who are 1000+ diamond playing protoss and could barely keep D level on ICCUP, so this is just ridiculous. I mean, it helps that I was able to teach them fundamentals and continue to help them, showing them a few build orders I'm working on every week or so, but anyone can find someone to help them get improve.
|
On September 10 2010 12:08 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. I know several casuals IRL who are 1000+ diamond playing protoss and could barely keep D level on ICCUP, so this is just ridiculous.
Edit: Read your post wrong. Not sure what you're trying to say..
|
On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically.
Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE.
|
On September 10 2010 12:09 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:08 PJA wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. I know several casuals IRL who are 1000+ diamond playing protoss and could barely keep D level on ICCUP, so this is just ridiculous. But that's because Protoss is OP.
That obviously contradicts your previous statement.
EDIT: Since apparently you're confused by my previous statement: I added that they were only D level in ICCUP to give an idea of how casual they were. Obviously a B+ level BW player could casually play SC2 and be 1200 with any race, that says nothing about balance or unplayability as a casual player.
|
Drops from terran can be easily defended by zerglings on creep/infestors/banelings etc and tends to backfire alot to the terran. When we look at the TvP MU, if going for bio the medivac is 100% NEEDED to win the game. The Protoss army destroys the bio army in a head on fight, so terran has to be able to drop several places at once to get the protoss off track and harass him as much as possible. And as we know, protoss can warp in units where they want to and that can destroy a drop quite fast with storm and stuff. If you made drop an upgrade or whatever they I think protoss would just dominate a bio army mid game.
|
On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not..
Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work...
|
Agree on all counts, ESPECIALLY the tech lab. Sensor tower and medivac need a nerf, too, though.
|
On September 10 2010 12:06 Musiq wrote:
The medivacs from the alpha build of SC2 were suppose to only be dropships. The Healing was an upgrade you can research turning the Dropship -> Medivac
I like this idea a lot. Would allow for more choices, plus a minor nerf.
|
On September 10 2010 12:12 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.. Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work...
Larva injection is a measure of skill: someone who is a pro will have a near 98% success with timings, and as a result will be able to field more units than a Zerg player who doesn't have a near 100% 25 energy larva injection rate. Likewise, a Protoss player who randomly Chrono Boosts anything will be significantly disadvantaged when playing a Protoss with a solid understanding of how many Chrono Boosts should be used on Warp Gate research, Probes, Thermal Lance, Colossus etc. Sadly this excludes Terran. Any Terran player will call down Mules, and even at high level play if a Terran gets 150~ energy before using Mules (because he's waiting for scans) he's not going to be any less disadvantaged than a Bronze Terran who does the exact same thing, but just because he's forgotten.
|
On September 10 2010 10:05 Dog22 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
I WISH medivacs were light... They also have 150 hp while warp prism has 100 HP and 40 Shield (correct me if I'm wrong) edit: Oh and medivacs have 1 armor as well, warp prism has 0
Warp prisms are also only made of Balsa wood.
|
On September 10 2010 12:16 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:06 Musiq wrote:
The medivacs from the alpha build of SC2 were suppose to only be dropships. The Healing was an upgrade you can research turning the Dropship -> Medivac I like this idea a lot. Would allow for more choices, plus a minor nerf.
But again, this would delay healing drops by maybe a minute or two ... is that really enough? Further, most drops I see involve a bunch or marauders pwning a nexus/hatch/cc and then hoping back into the medivac ... the role of the healing isn't key to the strat that many cry is OP..
|
On September 10 2010 12:12 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.. Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work...
thats one problem atm with the game. blizz added these macro mechanics. terrans mule allows for longer 1 base play, which is a positive for terran, protoss chrono boost, allows whatever the protoss decides to be reasearched or built much faster, which is a positive for protoss.
queens larva inject allows more larva, which currently are NEEDED to survive. miss an injection and you can lose the game right there.
its not so much that the macro mechanics are apm intensive, its just one of them can decide games. whilst the others dont.
|
On September 10 2010 12:20 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:16 0neder wrote:On September 10 2010 12:06 Musiq wrote:
The medivacs from the alpha build of SC2 were suppose to only be dropships. The Healing was an upgrade you can research turning the Dropship -> Medivac I like this idea a lot. Would allow for more choices, plus a minor nerf. But again, this would delay healing drops by maybe a minute or two ... is that really enough? Further, most drops I see involve a bunch or marauders pwning a nexus/hatch/cc and then hoping back into the medivac ... the role of the healing isn't key to the strat that many cry is OP..
A Medivac heals 13.5 HPS.
A Stalker deals 10/14 (Armoured) damage every 1.44 seconds. (A DPS of 6.94r/9.7r).
This gives a problem where 2 Stalkers (250/100) against 1 Marine and 1 Medivac would lose because the Stalker's combined DPS is (6.94 x 2 ) 13.88r meaning that against the 13.5 HPS the Stalkers are dealing (13.88r - 13.5 hps) 0.388r DPS. Against a Marine without combat shields (45 hp) this would cause the 2 Stalkers (note we're dealing with 250/100 against 150/100) to take 118.4 seconds to kill the Marine (assuming the Medivac never runs out of energy). If you were to target the Medivac first, however, it would take (150/17.4(-2[+1 armour reducing 1 damage from both Stalker attacks])) 8.6 seconds followed by a further 3.2 seconds to kill the Marine for a total of 11.8 seconds. In this 11.8 seconds, however, the Marine is dealing 6.97 dps (factoring in the -1 damage from the Stalker armour). In the 11.8 seconds it takes to kill both the Medivac/Marine [assuming you target the Medivac first) the Marine deals 82.2 damage.
This is the problem I find, as Protoss, against Terran. If both armies are equal the Protoss gets absolutely crushed because of the insane healing of the medivac. With proper control, from the Terran player, it takes 3 Stalkers to do enough damage to negate the healing effect of 1 Medivac against 1 Marine. While the Medivac is healing, however, the Terran army is at full strength because it's not losing numbers.
Posted by me. Medivac healing accounts for HUGE differences.
|
I have to disagree..... it is way eaiser to tech switch with zerg. Sure you have to build a building.. But then you ccan mass produce that unit INSTANTLY. Terran may be able to switch buildings, but you need to actually build like 3-5 of those buildings to actually produce anything out of them...
I mean you dont often see mass rax's, tech switching to mass factory then mass starport ... where as zerg that happens nearly every game. Zergs always tech switch..."wait my roach/hydra isnt working, Ill build a spire and the second its done mass 20 mutas in the build time of a single muta... Ok now hes got a ton of marines, ill just drops a baneling nest and spawn tons of banelings immediatly. " that doesnt happen with terran as they would need to drop factories to try and counter banelings. Tech switching with terran (aside from units out of the same building, which isnt really tech switching btw) requires a much greater investment.... E.g. from bio to big air ---> cost of 3-5 starports is huge (tons of gas). Tech switching to air with zerg = spire cost/build time, and mass production of that unit thereafter. In addition, alot of the time when you want to tech switch as terran, you still need those tech labs on your other structures to continue producing effective units. eg. if you are facing mass roach and want to switch to banshee you are not going to lift all your rax off and start producing marines against roaches, just so you can immediatly produce banshees.
I completely disagree with the tech lab analysis....However, the rest of your post is fairly reasonable. I agree that sensor towers are pretty huge, but im not sure if thats blizz's attempt to make up for the lack of mobility of alot of terran builds. The same could be argued for the medivac, but I agree that the medivac is hugely strong unit.
|
On September 10 2010 12:19 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:12 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.. Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work... Larva injection is a measure of skill: someone who is a pro will have a near 98% success with timings, and as a result will be able to field more units than a Zerg player who doesn't have a near 100% 25 energy larva injection rate. Likewise, a Protoss player who randomly Chrono Boosts anything will be significantly disadvantaged when playing a Protoss with a solid understanding of how many Chrono Boosts should be used on Warp Gate research, Probes, Thermal Lance, Colossus etc.
I know what the result is. I'm arguing with the means to get there. Sure it's a measure of skill if you can do 6 other things while remembering to spit larva, but it's not a very interesting mechanic. Why not let the queen do something similar to chronoboost where there's more than just clicking a hatch involved (spew onto structures to speed up production or some other interesting mechanic). Make the mechanic meaningful..
|
On September 10 2010 12:23 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:19 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 12:12 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.. Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work... Larva injection is a measure of skill: someone who is a pro will have a near 98% success with timings, and as a result will be able to field more units than a Zerg player who doesn't have a near 100% 25 energy larva injection rate. Likewise, a Protoss player who randomly Chrono Boosts anything will be significantly disadvantaged when playing a Protoss with a solid understanding of how many Chrono Boosts should be used on Warp Gate research, Probes, Thermal Lance, Colossus etc. I know what the result is. I'm arguing with the means to get there. Sure it's a measure of skill if you can do 6 other things while remembering to spit larva, but it's not a very interesting mechanic. Why not let the queen do something similar to chronoboost where there's more than just clicking a hatch involved (spew onto structures to speed up production or some other interesting mechanic). Make the mechanic meaningful..
It can transfuse and lay Creep Tumours. Top Zergs will generally make an extra Queen (Dimaga does this a lot against Terran) purely for Transfuse/Creep Tumour massing for more mobility. I think Transfuse is an awesome ability and I'd love to see some Queen/Ultralisk play where the Queens take out air, and the Ultras get healed by transfuse. Not sure how viable it is, due to Queen's requiring Creep to move, but it could be a fun idea.
|
The T 'problems' are nowhere NEAR what the whiners are making it out to be. Tweaks may (probably) need to be needed, but nowhere near to the degree people (including OP) think.
|
On September 10 2010 12:19 red_hq wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:05 Dog22 wrote:On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
I WISH medivacs were light... They also have 150 hp while warp prism has 100 HP and 40 Shield (correct me if I'm wrong) edit: Oh and medivacs have 1 armor as well, warp prism has 0 Warp prisms are also only made of Balsa wood.
I love how in the old school battle reports pre beta, the commentators introducing the warp prisms were like OMG THEY POWER BUILDINGS TOO!!!....Yeah, when was the last time you've seen the warp prism power buildings? The only reason for them are just for warping in/carrying units...
|
On September 10 2010 12:05 cArn- wrote:
The race actually able to tech switch like wtf are zergs. Once a spire, hydra den and roach warren are down, at any point of time it could be ANYTHING coming out of the next larva set. When you see a terran with 10 raxes, hey guess what, he's going to make marauders and marines, and that'll be what you'll have to worry about.
The funny thing is that with just those 2 types units, Mutas will die to a large number of rines and Roaches will die to Rauders. Throw in a Medivac and Hydras won't be that much of a problem as well. Banelings? Keep your Marauders in front to limit the damage from them. You would need a good flanking position as Zerg or you're going to get steamrolled.
|
On September 10 2010 12:25 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:23 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:19 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 12:12 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.. Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work... Larva injection is a measure of skill: someone who is a pro will have a near 98% success with timings, and as a result will be able to field more units than a Zerg player who doesn't have a near 100% 25 energy larva injection rate. Likewise, a Protoss player who randomly Chrono Boosts anything will be significantly disadvantaged when playing a Protoss with a solid understanding of how many Chrono Boosts should be used on Warp Gate research, Probes, Thermal Lance, Colossus etc. I know what the result is. I'm arguing with the means to get there. Sure it's a measure of skill if you can do 6 other things while remembering to spit larva, but it's not a very interesting mechanic. Why not let the queen do something similar to chronoboost where there's more than just clicking a hatch involved (spew onto structures to speed up production or some other interesting mechanic). Make the mechanic meaningful.. It can transfuse and lay Creep Tumours. Top Zergs will generally make an extra Queen (Dimaga does this a lot against Terran) purely for Transfuse/Creep Tumour massing for more mobility. I think Transfuse is an awesome ability and I'd love to see some Queen/Ultralisk play where the Queens take out air, and the Ultras get healed by transfuse. Not sure how viable it is, due to Queen's requiring Creep to move, but it could be a fun idea.
Queens are basically chained to hatcheries in early game due to the lack of creep. In late game, they'd get focused too fast they wouldn't have a chance to transfuse. Maybe if they were as cheap as SCVs and you could bring 10 of them with you ... but they're not (and shouldn't be).
I get that the queen needs to be multitasked, but injections a mechanic you *have* to use to play Zerg and it's just not a fun mechanic at all. Really ... can one Zerg stand up and say it's a mechanic they enjoy? Let Zergies focus their time on cool "rush mechanics" like the race is supposed to be all about (nydus worms, spreading creep, overlord drops, etc.)
|
On September 10 2010 12:25 oxxo wrote:
The T 'problems' are nowhere NEAR what the whiners are making it out to be. Tweaks may (probably) need to be needed, but nowhere near to the degree people (including OP) think.
The T problems ARE much worse then the T players who just shrug of said "whining" think they are. but thats one problem in its self. everyone has bias views. im a little bias to zerg, because i play them.
honestly we should start having protoss players analysing zvt.
terran players analysing zvp
and zerg players analysing pvt.
since their race isnt affected by the matchup, they can give unbias opinions(to a much lesser degree then matchups including their race.)
though i have a feeling that T will still get the small stick, since there seems to be alot more terran hate then toss/zerg hate.
|
On September 10 2010 12:30 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:25 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 12:23 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:19 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 12:12 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:
[quote]
If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.. Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work... Larva injection is a measure of skill: someone who is a pro will have a near 98% success with timings, and as a result will be able to field more units than a Zerg player who doesn't have a near 100% 25 energy larva injection rate. Likewise, a Protoss player who randomly Chrono Boosts anything will be significantly disadvantaged when playing a Protoss with a solid understanding of how many Chrono Boosts should be used on Warp Gate research, Probes, Thermal Lance, Colossus etc. I know what the result is. I'm arguing with the means to get there. Sure it's a measure of skill if you can do 6 other things while remembering to spit larva, but it's not a very interesting mechanic. Why not let the queen do something similar to chronoboost where there's more than just clicking a hatch involved (spew onto structures to speed up production or some other interesting mechanic). Make the mechanic meaningful.. It can transfuse and lay Creep Tumours. Top Zergs will generally make an extra Queen (Dimaga does this a lot against Terran) purely for Transfuse/Creep Tumour massing for more mobility. I think Transfuse is an awesome ability and I'd love to see some Queen/Ultralisk play where the Queens take out air, and the Ultras get healed by transfuse. Not sure how viable it is, due to Queen's requiring Creep to move, but it could be a fun idea. Queens are basically chained to hatcheries in early game due to the lack of creep. In late game, they'd get focused too fast they wouldn't have a chance to transfuse. Maybe if they were as cheap as SCVs and you could bring 10 of them with you ... but they're not (and shouldn't be). I get that the queen needs to be multitasked, but injections a mechanic you *have* to use to play Zerg and it's just not a fun mechanic at all. Really ... can one Zerg stand up and say it's a mechanic they enjoy? Let Zergies focus their time on cool "rush mechanics" like the race is supposed to be all about (nydus worms, spreading creep, overlord drops, etc.)
Nydus Worms suck, they're weak and very expensive and rely on the opponent not properly scouting. Spreading creep is just as tedious as injecting Larva and creep tumours can be easily sniped and all the work to build up map mobility can be lost in seconds. Overlord drops just don't work.
|
Okay, I only read part of the first post and i can conclude that this is just another QQ thread. Who cares if they are imbalanced or not, just play the game. My main race is Protoss and I honestly don't know as much as I would like about Zerg and Terran, but every time someone beats with me a build I feel i can't beat I just practice and figure out how to hold it off.
|
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
|
On September 10 2010 12:33 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:30 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:25 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 12:23 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:19 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 12:12 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.. Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work... Larva injection is a measure of skill: someone who is a pro will have a near 98% success with timings, and as a result will be able to field more units than a Zerg player who doesn't have a near 100% 25 energy larva injection rate. Likewise, a Protoss player who randomly Chrono Boosts anything will be significantly disadvantaged when playing a Protoss with a solid understanding of how many Chrono Boosts should be used on Warp Gate research, Probes, Thermal Lance, Colossus etc. I know what the result is. I'm arguing with the means to get there. Sure it's a measure of skill if you can do 6 other things while remembering to spit larva, but it's not a very interesting mechanic. Why not let the queen do something similar to chronoboost where there's more than just clicking a hatch involved (spew onto structures to speed up production or some other interesting mechanic). Make the mechanic meaningful.. It can transfuse and lay Creep Tumours. Top Zergs will generally make an extra Queen (Dimaga does this a lot against Terran) purely for Transfuse/Creep Tumour massing for more mobility. I think Transfuse is an awesome ability and I'd love to see some Queen/Ultralisk play where the Queens take out air, and the Ultras get healed by transfuse. Not sure how viable it is, due to Queen's requiring Creep to move, but it could be a fun idea. Queens are basically chained to hatcheries in early game due to the lack of creep. In late game, they'd get focused too fast they wouldn't have a chance to transfuse. Maybe if they were as cheap as SCVs and you could bring 10 of them with you ... but they're not (and shouldn't be). I get that the queen needs to be multitasked, but injections a mechanic you *have* to use to play Zerg and it's just not a fun mechanic at all. Really ... can one Zerg stand up and say it's a mechanic they enjoy? Let Zergies focus their time on cool "rush mechanics" like the race is supposed to be all about (nydus worms, spreading creep, overlord drops, etc.) Nydus Worms suck, they're weak and very expensive and rely on the opponent not properly scouting. Spreading creep is just as tedious as injecting Larva and creep tumours can be easily sniped and all the work to build up map mobility can be lost in seconds. Overlord drops just don't work.
Have you seen high-level nydus usage? It's insane. Additionally, if they're "weak and expensive" that can be fixed.
Zerg is supposed to be this race that has you constantly feeling like there's a bug in your bed and you can't find it. It keeps biting you and then his 200 friends show up. It just doesn't play like that right now.
Spreading creep is also a mechanic that could be tweaked. Instead of tumors, maybe unit presence pushes creep out (as you hold regions of the map with large numbers of units, creep starts to form / connect).
|
Medivacs not only get everything for no extra cost but can be double produced as soon as you get a fast starport up (you have a reactor built already from a rax).
How would a speed upgrade on them look? They are awfully quick, having them move slower than marine speed (no stim) base and upgrade to current speed would make them usable defensively but require an upgrade to keep up offensively and do proper drops. This also means the starport couldn't start double producing right away as it needs to stop at a tech lab.
The auto repair should simply be coded so a unit repairing/healing another gets the same target priority as the unit they are healing/repairing. So medivacs get the priority of the marine they are healing, scvs get the priority of the thor they are repairing but an scv repairing a mining scv would remain low priority.
The tech switching is the Terran mechanic so they keep that, remember it also makes good muta targets :p.
The sensor towers are a bigger problem ... They are just such a non RTS concept. Suddenly one race can remove fog of war for a quarter of the map? Seems rather silly. Maybe it should be a 50 energy activated ability that actually reveals everything (gives full sight) for 3-4 seconds. So if the Terran was afraid of some kind of harass he could use energy to keep track of it. Essentially a larger, dedicated and fixed scan.
|
so you're off the 'zerg is fine and zerg needs to l2p soapbox'? Now you acknowledge Terran needs changes? Hmm, wonder what it will be next week. At least you're starting to go in the right direction.
|
Before I start I just want to know why people expect this game to be the most balanced thing ever just one and a half months after release is absolutely stupid. Just because it has the word "Starcraft" in it doesn't mean its going to as balanced as a 12 year old game, and everyone is acting like spoilt children because of that. There are going to be 2 expansions over the next couple of years with new units and mechanics, so the whole balance will change then anyway. How many games that are this new are this balanced? None that I can think of, so some people need to cool off on the whole imbalance issue.
That aside, this is by far one of the best written and thought through threads about this subject that has been posted here, so here are my thoughts on this...
#1 I see where you're coming from with this. While it is easy for Terran to change everything around like such, it's sort of needed and has costs to it anyway. First you need to make the add ons, which takes time, and a bit of minerals and gas, but you need them on most buildings, and as such can lead to situations where you don't have a large enough army because of the time they take to build. Switching them around so easily balances out that Protoss can build what they want out of 3 structures providing they have the tech building, meaning they don't need anything like the add ons. All the Zerg needs is a building. This just boils down to unique mechanics for each race and could do with a bit of changing, but nothing drastic. Also, the add ons can be sniped very easily so they have a weakness there.
I do agree about how there aren't that many tech buildings, and I think that maybe reintroducing the merc compound from early alpha for upgrades and reapers would be interesting, but it's probably gone for a reason. If you compare the add ons to BW, the way it's set up is almost the same, just now they are usable through all structures and there is now the reactor.
#2 Changing this would be hard to do right. The way it works now is that they're only really used late game or during certain situations like contains, so changing its cost or build time won't really do much and would just be a needless change. An idea that I have is removing the red dots they show on the mini map and only in the fog of war like you said, but having an upgrade where they morph into another tower like was shown in the Terran demonstration video ages ago, but it changes it so it shows it on the mini map as well as the fog of war (essentially making it like it is now). The difference would be that it becomes a large investment time wise, money wise if it costs a lot, and possibly tech wise if you make it a research from the fusion core or something.
#3 This is a sensitive topic which can fuck things up in several ways if you change things. They are already quite high in the tech tree, so getting one early for the point of doing an early game drop wouldn't work any more if drop became an upgrade. They have high health because they are in the middle of your army during a battle so it's kind of needed there. Imo, this unit is quite balanced as it is and I don't think that tweaking it would do, well, anything too important. It will always heal and drop like it was designed to do.
If you compare terrans drop to that of other races, their actual drop unit is the only one that costs gas. Warp prisms are 200min and overlords are 100min (plus being a supply unit but that's kind of taken into consideration with it). No one is exploring the best use of warp prisms at all, just storm drops and a few other things, but I think they have a lot of potential that no one has discovered yet. Regarding overlords, the reason why you need 300/300 for the drop/speed upgrades is because you already, and always will, have overlords. Once you research drop, all overlords become useful in that sense. Plus 300/300 = 3 medivacs compared to drop tech and speed for every overlord you will ever have. If you want to drop early then i think that nydus worms are a better idea...
#4 Auto repair with SCV's being the lowest priority is one of the few things that is ridiculous and should be changed. Getting rid of auto repair would make micro more important but I think they have it for the new players, and it becomes hard to click on the SCV's to tell them what to repair if they're in the middle of a unit ball.
We are not balance designers at blizzard so we cannot really understand how hard it is to change the game, which you mention with your solutions. So what should we do? Just calm down, play the game more and figure it out better, and wait 3 or 4 years for the game to refine and have both expansions... Brood War wasn't balanced in a few months, and Starcraft without BW is horribly imbalanced. BW made Starcraft what it is today, and the same should be said about the coming expansions..
|
On September 10 2010 12:38 fugimax wrote:
Have you seen high-level nydus usage? It's insane. Additionally, if they're "weak and expensive" that can be fixed.
Zerg is supposed to be this race that has you constantly feeling like there's a bug in your bed and you can't find it. It keeps biting you and then his 200 friends show up. It just doesn't play like that right now.
Spreading creep is also a mechanic that could be tweaked. Instead of tumors, maybe unit presence pushes creep out (as you hold regions of the map with large numbers of units, creep starts to form / connect).
Nydus needs some tweaking. I have seen several of the better examples of recent pro nydus play and ... I kept thinking that if they had a muta for every worm they could have a-moved and won. If they were cheaper (50 gas?) for the worm and either came in faster or was burrowed while coming in they would see more use. I would really like them to be burrowed until they pop as it would make pylons ineffective at scouting for nydus. It also means a nydus network would force turrets.
|
On September 10 2010 12:57 Sixes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:38 fugimax wrote:
Have you seen high-level nydus usage? It's insane. Additionally, if they're "weak and expensive" that can be fixed.
Zerg is supposed to be this race that has you constantly feeling like there's a bug in your bed and you can't find it. It keeps biting you and then his 200 friends show up. It just doesn't play like that right now.
Spreading creep is also a mechanic that could be tweaked. Instead of tumors, maybe unit presence pushes creep out (as you hold regions of the map with large numbers of units, creep starts to form / connect). Nydus needs some tweaking. I have seen several of the better examples of recent pro nydus play and ... I kept thinking that if they had a muta for every worm they could have a-moved and won. If they were cheaper (50 gas?) for the worm and either came in faster or was burrowed while coming in they would see more use. I would really like them to be burrowed until they pop as it would make pylons ineffective at scouting for nydus. It also means a nydus network would force turrets.
I dont play much SC2, but shouldnt Nydus Worms be used the same as the Nydus Canal in BW? Having the ability to defend a base really easy by having a worm at each expansion.
|
If blizz does decide that terran is OP, I hope they decide to buff P and Z instead of just swinging the nerf hammer. I main toss, but the few times I've played terran I've thought the way everything works together is cool and fun. Not only that, but terran is fun to watch, because of the massive field of viable options available (just look at TLO :D). It seems like a mistake to ruin the coolness of terran in order to balance the game.
If I were going to buff Z or P, I would focus on increasing viability of earlier tech. For instance, make lair cheaper, or faster, or allow zerg to build queen and upgrade lair at the same time. For toss, I would probably reduce the cost or build time of the twilight council, and possibly also the cost/time on the TC upgrades.
Now, I'm not a good enough player to truly say whether balance changes are necessary, but if they are, I would MUCH prefer to see buffs than nerfs.
|
All of the OP's points revolve around scouting. I've been playing a lot more tosses that are rushing to observers just to see if I'm doing a bioball or something else. As for zergs, I rarely see them poke in my base more than once or twice.
I wouldn't be too surprised if overseer and obs costs or build times go down.
As for the gameplay, Tosses need to build more than 1 obs for scouting purposes and zergs need to abuse the overseer much more. The sensor tower might be a problem for zerg, but I've seen more zergs lose because of poor decision making rather than being ambushed by banshees or ravens.
|
On September 10 2010 12:05 cArn- wrote:
What's this joke, Terran the race with the most ability to "tech switch" ? Are you serious ? When you have alreayd 10 raxes, no matter what kind of tech switch you might need you're stuck playing with a largely bio composed army.
The race actually able to tech switch like wtf are zergs. Once a spire, hydra den and roach warren are down, at any point of time it could be ANYTHING coming out of the next larva set. When you see a terran with 10 raxes, hey guess what, he's going to make marauders and marines, and that'll be what you'll have to worry about.
Have you tried playing as Zerg? Tech switching incurs a large cost since the tech is both obvious to a scouting opponent and time consuming. Revealing your tech path means a terran opponent can easily counter with a tech switch. Add to that the versatility of the Terran army and you have less reason to tech switch.
IF a specific Zerg units required a specific terran unit to be massed in order to defend, you would have a point.
Lings --> marines
Roaches --> marauders
Banelings --> marauders + stim to spread
Muta --> marines + pop up some static defense
Ultralisks --> marauders
Corruptors --> marines
Broodlords --> vikings, which if you are making medivacs, you already have this facility.
Infestors --> ghost, which is already viable against ultras/mutas/corruptors and simply require 1 extra building, in reality you could probably just kill them when they pop up to cast their spells since they are so damned large and easy to spot.
About the only unit which requires a tech switch is Hydras, which being slow off creep means that you can just stim and run away until you get tanks out on the field, or even easier, Hellions to support your marine/marauder ball. Hydras are also obvious since the opponent would require a creep highway to even implement it giving you time to mass up a larger army since hydras are so damn pricey and have such low HP while having unupgraded range equal to that of a marine, and upgraded range equal to that of a marauder.
|
An addition to point number 4:
Planetary Fortresses are SO hard to take down with scvs repairing because you need to individually target like 20 workers (or sometimes more like 40 because it may be the last mining base that the terran will put a PF on) and if you are attacking from below (the mineral patch is above the PF) then it is extremely difficult to click on the scvs in the first place.
|
Why not make Medivacs have 4 slots instead of 8 until you upgrade them instead of making drop an upgrade? Really Medivacs kinda blow as healers because they cost so freaking much gas for the amount of HP they can actually heal.
|
I prefer the idea of a speed upgrade for Medivacs and possibly adding a longer delay to connecting/disconnecting tech labs/reactors. 5-10 seconds maybe. Would add a penalty to randomly moving stuff around like there isn't right now.
Edit: Additionally, I wish the solution was to add cool things to the other races instead of killing Terran. They really feel like the only complete race in the game. Protoss and Zerg seem to have more holes and less fun abilities(Gimmicks?).
|
On September 10 2010 13:17 Antisocialmunky wrote:
Why not make Medivacs have 4 slots instead of 8 until you upgrade them instead of making drop an upgrade? Really Medivacs kinda blow as healers because they cost so freaking much gas for the amount of HP they can actually heal.
but you see in an MMM army, only two units cost gas. marauders and medivacs
other then upgrades theres no where to put your gas so you can still get a large number of medivacs without a problem.
and 100 gas for a unit that heals 13 hp per second is a fair trade.
|
Well said Raelcun. This could solve alot of problems and bring back the fun fighting against Terran, instead of the feeling of "damn, their stuff is better at what it does than mine."
|
On September 10 2010 12:12 fugimax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:10 EliteAzn wrote:On September 10 2010 12:05 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 12:01 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:59 fugimax wrote:On September 10 2010 11:50 Cranberries wrote:On September 10 2010 11:48 fugimax wrote:
Here's a thought:
Why not leave Terran the way it is an tweak the other races? Terran is the most accessible race. It's fairly straightforward, you don't need crazy APM to just keep up, and it's downright fun to play. Why not lower the need for "macro APM" on the other races and focus on making APM really shine in micro?
This would let pros do amazing things and let the casuals play all three races. I don't play either Zerg or Protoss because the necessity of downright annoying actions (queen larva spewing, chronoboost, etc.) makes me not interested in those races at all. They are not accessible to me, really. I wouldn't have fun playing the game.
My guess is that Blizzard probably agrees with most of this given their previous statements on accessibility and leveling the field in certain regards.. If you reduce the skill level in a game that's supposed to be an esports because of it's uncapped skill level I'd argue pretty strongly it's counter intuitive and bad, overall, for the game's progression: both as an esports and as a business venture. I'm not saying reduce the skill level ... I'm saying redistribute the skill into micro. Most people complain that SC2 is not as micro intense as SC1 ... ok, then take the annoying macro APM required and push that into micro. You can still make a game that has "no skill cap" ... but don't make the fundamentals annoying and inaccessible. As a casual, playing anything but Terran would just be stupid for me. Do you know how APM works, or what it means? If you reduce the APM needed to macro, and increase the APM needed to micro, you haven't reduced the APM: you've just made it easier for Terran (as their macro is already easier) and made it harder for Z/P (who already have to micro more than a Terran). Yes, I know what APM is. I'm saying to reduce the amount of macro APM needed for Z/P, basically. Why reduce the APM for TWO races when you can increase the APM for ONE. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.. Does anyone really believe that managing a queen spweing larva is an *enjoyable* game mechanic? At least with chronoboost it lets you boost research/builds, but larva spewing is literally busy work...
make the spawn larva autocast?
|
I'm honestly surprised sensor tower made it to release. It's such an obviously broken idea.
|
One of the more interesting aspects of how terran units are so strong have a combination of two things, the lack of scoutability before the units come out, and the lack of projectiles.
To explain the lack of projectiles i'll make a list.
The Following ranged Terran Units have no projectiles:
Marine range 5 (combat)
Reaper range 4.5 (harrass)
Ghost range 5 (6?) (support)
Hellion range 6 (combat/harrass)
Siege Tank range 6 (13) (combat)
Thor (vs ground) range 7 (combat)
Viking (vs ground) range 5 (combat)
Auto Turret range 5 (support)
The Following ranged protoss units have no projectile:
Sentry range 5 (support)
Archon range 2 (combat)
Immortal range 5 (combat)
Collosus range 5 (9) (support)
Void Ray range 5 (support)
Interceptor range 10 from carrier (support)
The Following ranged zerg units have no projectile:
Roach range 3(combat)
Infested Terran range 5 (support)
Now, what does no projectile mean? two major things,
1. No projectile means immunity to Point Defense Drone. simple enough.
2. No projectile means that a unit has no overkill. That is the AI instinctly knows how to perfectly distribute fire within range. This allows auto attack to be the most efficient distribution of damage against an enemy army within range. This also is negated by large unit radius combine with short range, excluding archons (vs ground) and roaches from benefitting from this except in unusual circumstances.
Total no overkill units for terran:
8 total, 4.5 combat, 2 support, 1.5 harrass
Total no overkill units for protoss:
5 total, 1 combat, 4 support
Total no overkill units for Zerg
1 Total, 1 support.
This just shows that the Mechanics of the AI favors Terran compared to the other two races by a large large margin.
This being said i think that zerg is the best race (i play zerg) because of the synergy within the units. However unit for unit terran is by far stronger and benefits the most by the system in the game.
|
Tech labs having an upgrade animation would be boss.
|
I wish Blizzard read posts like these, all indicates that they don't, I'm getting so impatient about the changes...
|
Oh shoot you just reminded me that sensor towers actually exists.
Forgot about those guys just because they don't exist in BW
|
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.
Agreed. I have to admit, I haven't really been having many issues as zerg vs terran lately. I would agree scouting should be an issue. But it hasn't been because 90% of the terran I have played in the last few weeks go 1 of 2 strats. Reaper-> MMM or hellions -> mech. The terrans that beat me as of late are normally the ones that do something out of the norm like some raven play or ghost action.
|
On September 10 2010 13:25 PrinceXizor wrote:
The Following ranged zerg units have no projectile:
Roach range 3(combat)
Infested Terran range 5 (support)
Total no overkill units for terran:
8 total, 4.5 combat, 2 support, 1.5 harrass
Total no overkill units for protoss:
5 total, 1 combat, 4 support
Total no overkill units for Zerg
1 Total, 1 support.
This just shows that the Mechanics of the AI favors Terran compared to the other two races by a large large margin.
This being said i think that zerg is the best race (i play zerg) because of the synergy within the units. However unit for unit terran is by far stronger and benefits the most by the system in the game.
Actually roaches very much do overkill. You can test it out yourself in a unit editor. They even overkill when you do stop move attacks.
|
The tech lab has an animation.
Stop whining about it and use your eyes.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 10 2010 12:57 Sixes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 12:38 fugimax wrote:
Have you seen high-level nydus usage? It's insane. Additionally, if they're "weak and expensive" that can be fixed.
Zerg is supposed to be this race that has you constantly feeling like there's a bug in your bed and you can't find it. It keeps biting you and then his 200 friends show up. It just doesn't play like that right now.
Spreading creep is also a mechanic that could be tweaked. Instead of tumors, maybe unit presence pushes creep out (as you hold regions of the map with large numbers of units, creep starts to form / connect). Nydus needs some tweaking. I have seen several of the better examples of recent pro nydus play and ... I kept thinking that if they had a muta for every worm they could have a-moved and won. If they were cheaper (50 gas?) for the worm and either came in faster or was burrowed while coming in they would see more use. I would really like them to be burrowed until they pop as it would make pylons ineffective at scouting for nydus. It also means a nydus network would force turrets.
I definitely agree with this. You can support spamming nydus if you're on a good number of bases, but otherwise it's better to just get a bigger army...
|
On September 10 2010 13:36 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 13:25 PrinceXizor wrote:
The Following ranged zerg units have no projectile:
Roach range 3(combat)
Infested Terran range 5 (support)
Total no overkill units for terran:
8 total, 4.5 combat, 2 support, 1.5 harrass
Total no overkill units for protoss:
5 total, 1 combat, 4 support
Total no overkill units for Zerg
1 Total, 1 support.
This just shows that the Mechanics of the AI favors Terran compared to the other two races by a large large margin.
This being said i think that zerg is the best race (i play zerg) because of the synergy within the units. However unit for unit terran is by far stronger and benefits the most by the system in the game. Actually roaches very much do overkill. You can test it out yourself in a unit editor. They even overkill when you do stop move attacks.
I think he's talking about infested terran.
|
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.
|
On September 10 2010 13:41 Xog wrote:
The tech lab has an animation.
Stop whining about it and use your eyes.
yes it does have an animation. for both training a unit and researching in the tech lab.
and its the same for both
|
On September 10 2010 13:42 AssuredVacancy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 13:36 teamsolid wrote:
Actually roaches very much do overkill. You can test it out yourself in a unit editor. They even overkill when you do stop move attacks. I think he's talking about infested terran.
Actually yeah i did mean infested terran because roaches are so large comparitive to their range they cannot effectively make choices to target the best possible targets. this is also true of archons and why they are both removed from the list of no overkill units.
|
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...
|
Easy way to fix terran: Marauders no longer have stim.
Done.
The rest of the game can be rebalanced slightly around that.
|
Thread "Why the Terran problems are not an imbalance issue", that complains about imbalance?
|
i'm glad someone else finally is mentioning the repair is broken
I wrote about this: + Show Spoiler +Repairing. Scvs, the workhorses of T can repair structures and mechanical units. Multiple scvs at once can repair the same target. Viability/usefulness in combat: Very high SCVs repair automaticly everything what they can, also can be targeted to repair what you think is the most important. They dont run out of energy, as they only need a bit of resource to do the repairing. Problem: Absolutely yes, definetly, for sure. Why?
1. First, are the Terran mech units that weak in combat to need a bonus like this? I leave it up to you to decide, next:
2. SCVs do not run out of energy.
3. SCVs are not expoused to attacks. In fact while repairing Thors they might be overshadowed thus fully protected by Thors. Also units do not attack automacticly the scvs, as their priority will be always the Thor. A thor surrounded with scvs is immune to lings, as they will run around him. If you target fire the scvs 1 by 1 you waste a lot of shots and time. Let's see you have 10 roaches selected if you right click 1 scv, some of the roaches wont reach it, some will waste their shot, as it only takes 4 to kill ans scv. You canot possibly expect a Zerg that during a battle he selects his roaches 4 by 4 and right clicks the scvs which are barely visible, while the T sits with his hands on his keyboard and mouse and watches how his healed units rape everything.
4. SCVs can also reapir each other, or be helaed by medavacs while repairing.
5. SCVs are not fighting units. They are workorses as probes or drones. Do you see Probes or Drones pulled to attack? Well i saw once on Scrap Station when the P already lost made a last attack, complete failure btw. Never seen drones attacking. Ok, some sort of early cheese yes, probes and drones can be pulled when you 9 pool or 2 gate proxy or w/e, nothing game braking. Do you see SCVs pulled to attack? YES. Have you lost to that? I surely do every day. Let it be either a pre-meditated cheesy allin from 1 base, or a desperation move from the T to try to end the game when he s falling imminently behind. It works like a charm. To give you an example i recommend Morrow's last game vs Idra, hellion, marauder, scv allin. The zerg has lings and crawlers. The marauders deal with the static D, however the hellions wont kill enough lings without preigniter, but there are the scvs screwing up the pathing and repairing the hellions, making Morrow a richer Swede. (Props to him, btw, i think he's an excelent player, i really do). Or to stick with the IEM, there was a game, not broadcasted on the big stage, where Dimaga was beating a terran which almost came back, a Thor with scvs annihilted a smaller army on his own. The T lost, as Dimaga outplayed him and had a big advantage already. there are many allins, tank-marine-scv, marauder-thor-scv, i even saw medavac brought, a 60 APM newbie beat me twice with an allin like that, but i guess very good players can react properly and fend that off, however i'm not sure, and we still have the issue, that once T feels he's losing he can pull his workers and make his army a lot stronger. Neither of the races can do this, or anything similar.
6. Repair makes cliff abuse even more broken. We see how Zergs thumb down LT against T or just go for an allin every time. The cliff at the natural is killer. If u can get enough mutas out, to take down a thor, preferebly demaged by a crawler or queens maybe. Now the T can just easily hop up some scvs with his medavac OR call down a mule or 2.
I really could go into details till midnight how strategies with repair-abuse work, but i m sure most of you have done/experienced those.
How to counter this? As i said, scvs are hard to kill Splash would work, although if you have a bling army you send those in with lings roaches w/e, they will surely take out most of the scvs, however even if 3-4 remain they do a hell of a job, and the T can just call down mules. I guess storm works better.
|
On September 10 2010 14:56 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 14:34 teamsolid wrote: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]
1. Oh no, Terrans have to build 3 different units to have a well-rounded army that can take on any force in the game? If you made ONLY speedlings and banelings, you'd be toast against any kind of air or mech play, which is why you need the mutas, so again three units for a mix. Protoss stalkers are a bit unique, simply due to their high HP and blink ability but are still far stronger in combination with colossus/HT/sentry support. Otherwise P does needs a mix of units, e.g. Zealot/Sentry/Stalker, zealot/immortal/HT, stalker/sentry/colossus, etc, etc. Pretty much bunk, since every race needs a mix and Terrans are not special in this regard.
2. Terran is imba against Terran. Right.......
3. Immobility is probably the one and only weakness a Terran army has, and can be completely avoided by simply not going mech. In which case Terrans now have the most mobile army in the game.
|
On September 10 2010 15:12 nitdkim wrote:
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
We already have that.... Marauders do 20 dmg and 10 dmg reduction to light units...Just like dragoons actually.
|
|
|
For anyone who claims zerg can't control space they are pretty much wrong in every way. Infestors, mutas, banelings, ultralisks, brood lords, all effective at controlling space.
|
You can tell if a tech lab is upgrading....
If the Barracks lights are not glowing but the tech lab is still glowing green then its being in use, although if a unit is being built out of the barracks it will glow green too.
Also, the engineering bay's gears on the sides move when it is upgrading, and the armory is the armoy, starts dancing around giddy when its being used.
|
On September 10 2010 15:43 sadyque wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 15:12 nitdkim wrote:
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 We already have that.... Marauders do 20 dmg and 10 dmg reduction to light units...Just like dragoons actually.
dragoons with stim pack just came to my mind
and made me chuckle
|
On September 10 2010 14:39 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 14:05 hdkhang wrote: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 comparisonEU 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?
The data you used to build your conclusion is not the problem, the problem is your conclusion is an oversimplification.
Lets use a car analogy. Three cars, a small sports car, great in coners but has poor max speed. A muscle car, great on straights but poor in corners. The third car is an allrounder, neither great or bad at either.
So we build some tracks, one track is basically an oval, the muscle will dominate. Another track is filled with twists and turns and very few places to open up the throttle, the sports car wins. A third track has a bit of both and here they all do relatively the same. The allrounder maintains a reasonable pace beating the muscle in corners, but losing on straights, and losing to the sports car in corners but winning on straights. The muscle loses to both in corners but beats out both in the straighter sections. Likewise the sports car loses to both in the straights but beats both in the corners.
So you say, GREAT! The solution is simple, just make sure there are only ever tracks which have an even distribution of twists/turns as well as straights. In other words - the ideal map. It will solve all the balance issues no problems.
But there is a problem. The problem is assuming that all the cars have equal opportunity to shine and that ones weakness in one area is compensated for by it's strength in another, or that it's mediocrity in one area is offset by it's lack of any real weakness in any other.
|
United States47024 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.
I like how you totally go against the OP's point with zero evidence whatsoever.
|
On September 10 2010 16:10 ZlaSHeR wrote:
You can tell if a tech lab is upgrading....
If the Barracks lights are not glowing but the tech lab is still glowing green then its being in use, although if a unit is being built out of the barracks it will glow green too.
Also, the engineering bay's gears on the sides move when it is upgrading, and the armory is the armoy, starts dancing around giddy when its being used.
but you cant tell if he is just building a unit. or building a unit AND upgrading at the same time.
|
On September 10 2010 15:07 omnigol wrote:
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.
Lurkers arent really good at storming a defensive position, are they? I can agree with you on the Defiler and the Reaver, but SC2 has got different options.
Roach / Infestor burrowed movement is a nice example and if you have an opponent who "doesnt do his homework" you can break through easily.
If the map is a tad bigger you can easily go around a choke with a Nydus worm [spawned anywhere NOT in reach of units that can kill it] or a Warp Prism / Mothership-recall. Covering everything on a large-huge map with detectors / turrets isnt possible and that is good. With the current map size it is relatively easy, because maps are small and bases (3rd, 4th, 5th, ...) are close together so turtling units can cover most of the endangered area or react quickly enough. This way the immobility doesnt matter.
On small maps the only option against a turtle is to "break" him and that is bad. Defensive play should be viable, but there should be options to outmaneuver it. A "containment" is a viable and used strategy in BW, but how many times have you seen that in SC2? Hardly any time.
The siege Tank AI is not an issue IMO, because in BW people didnt cluster 12 siege tanks in one spot, but rather spread them out in groups of 2-3 tanks. That way opponents get into range of different groups at different times and the "dumb firing" of the BW-AI is made smarter. Please stop whining about that, because it doesnt matter. On small maps there is no room AND no incentive to actually spread them out.
|
The SCV thing can be "not easily fixed by tweaking a few numbers". They can increase their attack priority(when repairing) to match attacking units and repair times could be standartised.
Currently SCVs repair the most hp/second on Thors and BCs, which also have the most max hp. Instead they should repair the same hp/second on all units, less than the current on Thor/BC and more on the lower hp units.
|
On September 10 2010 16:19 hdkhang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 14:39 Rabiator wrote:On September 10 2010 14:05 hdkhang wrote: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 comparisonEU 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? The data you used to build your conclusion is not the problem, the problem is your conclusion is an oversimplification. Lets use a car analogy. Three cars, a small sports car, great in coners but has poor max speed. A muscle car, great on straights but poor in corners. The third car is an allrounder, neither great or bad at either. So we build some tracks, one track is basically an oval, the muscle will dominate. Another track is filled with twists and turns and very few places to open up the throttle, the sports car wins. A third track has a bit of both and here they all do relatively the same. The allrounder maintains a reasonable pace beating the muscle in corners, but losing on straights, and losing to the sports car in corners but winning on straights. The muscle loses to both in corners but beats out both in the straighter sections. Likewise the sports car loses to both in the straights but beats both in the corners. So you say, GREAT! The solution is simple, just make sure there are only ever tracks which have an even distribution of twists/turns as well as straights. In other words - the ideal map. It will solve all the balance issues no problems. But there is a problem. The problem is assuming that all the cars have equal opportunity to shine and that ones weakness in one area is compensated for by it's strength in another, or that it's mediocrity in one area is offset by it's lack of any real weakness in any other.
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.
|
On September 10 2010 16:17 leve15 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 15:43 sadyque wrote:On September 10 2010 15:12 nitdkim wrote:
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 We already have that.... Marauders do 20 dmg and 10 dmg reduction to light units...Just like dragoons actually. dragoons with stim pack just came to my mind and made me chuckle
Dragoons with stim... and a slowing attack.
|
Not really sure about the other issues like the medivac, maybe a cargo space upgrade like some suggested, but the sensor tower and auto-repair really have no place in the game at all. They just shouldn't exist.
Oh, and fix the tech lab upgrade animation.
|
On September 10 2010 16:34 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 16:17 leve15 wrote:On September 10 2010 15:43 sadyque wrote:On September 10 2010 15:12 nitdkim wrote:
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 We already have that.... Marauders do 20 dmg and 10 dmg reduction to light units...Just like dragoons actually. dragoons with stim pack just came to my mind and made me chuckle Dragoons with stim... and a slowing attack.
Yeah stim is a really powerful ability do be giving away for 100/100. I say at least raise the price back up to 150/150 or remove it from the marauder all together... so much DPS, so easily obtained...
|
On September 10 2010 16:34 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 16:17 leve15 wrote:On September 10 2010 15:43 sadyque wrote:On September 10 2010 15:12 nitdkim wrote:
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 We already have that.... Marauders do 20 dmg and 10 dmg reduction to light units...Just like dragoons actually. dragoons with stim pack just came to my mind and made me chuckle Dragoons with stim... and a slowing attack.
And 55 less hp, no shield regen, slower movement speed, and can't shoot air. Otherwise, yea, the same unit.
|
The main issue is the fact that that thor rush that BC rush that we were talkinga bout earlier while not inherently overpowered because it's a huge investment if it doesn't work they're screwed.
What?
And ye, those are reasonable suggestions. Doesn't fix the whole race, but it's a start.
|
Wouldn't disagree on making drop capability an upgrade.
|
United Kingdom12022 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.
|
On September 10 2010 16:48 link0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 16:34 lololol wrote:On September 10 2010 16:17 leve15 wrote:On September 10 2010 15:43 sadyque wrote:On September 10 2010 15:12 nitdkim wrote:
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 We already have that.... Marauders do 20 dmg and 10 dmg reduction to light units...Just like dragoons actually. dragoons with stim pack just came to my mind and made me chuckle Dragoons with stim... and a slowing attack. 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...
|
I support the idea behind an academy for stimpack/concussive shell/reaper upgrade. Not only does it nerf the very early marauder push against Protoss (which is pretty much unbeatable), but it also allows you to scout what they're doing. An early academy would obviously mean some bio push, compared to just seeing a tech lab and just having a guess.
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.
|
omg the medivac thing has been plaguing my mind for so long especially when you compare it to a warp prisom ,thanks for coming forward with this I didnt want to deal with the flames of TL
|
I pretty much always disagree with your points Raelcun...
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
|
So you are saying that Blizzard will have to completely change Terran, so that the other races don't QQ as much ?
|
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.
|
The medivac change seems really far fetched. So the medivac is just going to be a healer and then with the upgrade a drop ship?
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.
|
On September 10 2010 17:15 vrok wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 16:59 Qikz wrote: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. 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.
|
Good post but the only thing that bothers me the most are Medivacs. They are borderline OP in their current state and i hope they get tweaked in some way like upgrades to make them shuttles or make the heal an upgrade/remove the healing ability and bring the medic(would love this).
Medivacs and sensor towers are kinda OP right now and in my opinion and i hope they will look at this.
|
very good op, its missing one point however, da MULE
oh and there remains issue of dragoons with stim... and slowing attack... just cheaper and half the size.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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 16:25 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 16:19 hdkhang wrote:On September 10 2010 14:39 Rabiator wrote:On September 10 2010 14:05 hdkhang wrote: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 comparisonEU 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? The data you used to build your conclusion is not the problem, the problem is your conclusion is an oversimplification. Lets use a car analogy. Three cars, a small sports car, great in coners but has poor max speed. A muscle car, great on straights but poor in corners. The third car is an allrounder, neither great or bad at either. So we build some tracks, one track is basically an oval, the muscle will dominate. Another track is filled with twists and turns and very few places to open up the throttle, the sports car wins. A third track has a bit of both and here they all do relatively the same. The allrounder maintains a reasonable pace beating the muscle in corners, but losing on straights, and losing to the sports car in corners but winning on straights. The muscle loses to both in corners but beats out both in the straighter sections. Likewise the sports car loses to both in the straights but beats both in the corners. So you say, GREAT! The solution is simple, just make sure there are only ever tracks which have an even distribution of twists/turns as well as straights. In other words - the ideal map. It will solve all the balance issues no problems. But there is a problem. The problem is assuming that all the cars have equal opportunity to shine and that ones weakness in one area is compensated for by it's strength in another, or that it's mediocrity in one area is offset by it's lack of any real weakness in any other. 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.
|
|
|
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.
|
On September 10 2010 10:28 KhAlleB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 10:25 MegaBUD wrote:On September 10 2010 10:18 KhAlleB wrote:On September 10 2010 10:03 MegaBUD wrote:
Medivac cost 100/100... and are light units with low hp... compare that to toss warp in...
you must be trolling... medivac is one the drop mechanic who got the more HP, warp prisme is a paper plane... Doesnt have a shield... and cant regen hp... but yeah you can repair it... with a cost... warp prism can power up your canon... and you can warp in units... Blizz wont make major change till next expension... The only thing they gonna do is play with the number, they had the whole beta to do thing... and they barely did anything. 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 -_-
|
If so then medivac should get the healing as upgrade not the transportation.
Sensor tower is just not starcraft like and should have gone from the beginning of the beta.
Tech labs are fine but the tech choices appearing with it so early are not. could be eaily solved with one more building after lab to get marauder, like a academy in BW.
Personally i think every good unit needs a weakness to get the overall balance. Marauders have good speed, armor, range, dps ... -> shorter range and they are good to go.
btw i play T
|
Agree to a certain degree but I must say that the tanks not overshooting really is my biggest problem as a protoss but then again I don't really have protoss vs terran.
|
Marauders are by far the most effective ground to ground unit in the game. Assuming your opponent doesnt go air, mass marauders will beat any unit composition you can come up with
|
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.
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.
|
agree with everything you said - nevertheless I think it could be simpliefied by just spelling one word:
versatility
with the exception of marauders vs buildings I couldn't think of any "special" unit or unit-combination of terran that were overpowered (in PvT, can't speak for zerg); but blizzard seems to have done a "too" good job at making terran-units useful; right now there simply isn't a "crappy" terran-unit or tech, they are all pretty good; MMM vs P? no discussion; marines/banshees/ravens? really good; tech to battlecruiser? works; ghosts? extremely good not just against HT but against zealot-balls as well because of the remove of shields;
with this being said, the easy ability to tech-switch comes into play; again, I understand that this should be what defines terran as a race - we don't want 3 races that are basicly "the same";
but then the unit-compositions themselves need to be somewhat better "counterable" to "force" terrans to tech-switch more often:
just to stick with the famous MMM against protoss; this works pretty much the whole time; if the protoss adds colossi the terran can add vikings; if the protoss adds high templar the terran can add ghosts; imo the initial unit shouldn't be so strong, meaning that the tech should be somewhat "delayed"....eg. an upgrade for EMP or vikings needing an upgrade to be able to fly; NOT an expensive one but simply something that "delays" the first initial switch
|
You forgot the ridiculousness of Terran Static Defense
Bunkers are free.
Turrets hit for like 250% their dps in BW against mutalisks of same health
Planetary Fortresses spell zero harass on that particular expansion.
|
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 18:24 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
Small point, but reapers require nitro packs.
|
On September 10 2010 18:10 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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: - 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.
From An Open letter on balance and maps http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140754¤tpage=4#70
On August 03 2010 10:12 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 06:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
The balance in Starcraft 2 seems good, but the maps suck
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 MechWhy Zerg is good
From How to fix TvZ Mech http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=129070¤tpage=45#886
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.
Every thread I make you disagree with me even if that means disagreeing with your past posts apparently. I have stopped taking you seriously sir, now kindly go away so that maybe some reasonable discussion can go on.
edit: for those too lazy to read the wall of text
Read those from bottom to top, he says maps are the problem when I say one terran mechanic needs fixing, not even damage the mechanic itself.
Then he follows it up in my map thread by saying that maps aren't the problem learn to play newb.
Then he follows that by saying the maps are the problem in this thread and that I should stop saying Terran is IMBA.
|
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?
|
agree with the op.
to all terrans, especially our beloved rabiator:
stop blaming zerg skills or maps when there are OBVIOUS issues in the game mechanics.
given the number of options a zerg has compared to that of a terran should let you come to one conclussion: zerg is not very well designed. terran has a dozen of gimmicks the other races can only dream of (sensor tower, upgrades to armor/range of buildings, ...) that just give the race more options to choose from.
zerg play is pretty linear whereas terran has a lot of options at ANY time in the game. where those tech labs, medivacs and orbital commands come into play. terrans get all the counters to invisible units or air for free within their standard tech path limiting the amount of usefull strategys against a terran drastically. if you cannot see this you are just blind and ignorant.
rabiator should be forced to stay out of discussion threads. seriously, why do you let him ruin every discussion thread with good ideas spamming his biased opinions?
|
I like some of the OP's points. But i reckon Sensor towers are nice, I like them. Encouraging turtling, slow push terran.
Perhaps Medivacs should only be able to carry 2 marauders of space when first built and need an upgrade to carry the 4.
This way terran can do some drops, but is not as strong early. But terran can still do drops later.
|
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%.
|
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?
the problem is, that I'm a protoss-player - and just from watching TvZ-streams I get angry at how easy the terran-player can keep the zerg contained
seriously, do terrans even "know" how it feels to fight in their own bases in the early game if they don't stupidly allow zerg-run-bys?
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%.
concerning a GSL-game:
+ Show Spoiler +I would've complained yesterday in game 1 of tester where tester was CLEARLY the better player but just got dropped the hell out of him....but I was afraid of warning/temp-ban
|
it just seems like everything they have could use a slight nerf haha
|
I think the sensor tower could be changed into a sonar like "ping" ability. You wouldn't see all the movement everytime it just would push a circle from the sensor tower and detect all units that are moving and show them once (maybe even detecting only moving units at all, that would actually make it very micro intensiv to avoid sensor towers). Then after a few seconds they would show them again (similar to the motion sensor in alien vs. predator 1, well I think it worked that way - long time ago). That would make them slightly less effective because you could outmaneouver them (the ping has to be shown on the minimap) but maybe that would mess up the minimap overview in general.
|
Perhaps something like it pings 1 unit coming into the sonar every 5 seconds (doesn't show units moving, only shows when an enemy enters it)
Would be interesting to watch a probe ping the Sonar so some void rays can quickly get thru the sonar undetected. Rather than every unit just showing up on the sonar till it leaves
|
Really good post raelcun. I've though of a lot of these myself, but never really put them all together to realy get at how together they make terran seem so strong. Very god post, and I agree with everything.
|
Completely agree, but i think that marauder is a polymorphed dragoon disguised as a terran. And it needs changes.
|
Tech Labs. I'm okay with that. It seems like it's just sort of their thing. If you want to nerf it, I'd just add a build time to when you reattach it somewhere. But I doubt that'd do anything other than just annoy people.
Medivacs. I take this as just being a part of their racial identity. It's true that it's very strong. But on the same token it is a Tier 3 (or 2.5) unit. I don't mind it being a strategy that you are forced to be aware of. I don't really think forcing an upgrade on a drop would change anything as it's not like Medivac drop is a rush strategy.
Sensor Towers. They seem extremely expensive, and thus alright.
Auto-repair. I could see this being an issue for PvZ with Thors, but it doesn't seem super-huge. Plus, it kinda seems like it would just be taking an axe to a strategy.
My adjustments would be.
Tech-lab. Add an attach time when you switch.
Medivac. Requires Tech-lab.
Sensor Tower. Ground units only.
Auto-repair. Fungal Growth prevents repairing.
|
Hyrule19029 Posts
I'm Terran and I approve this message.
|
@Rabiator: Improving game balance through map design might work, but wouldn't a game where a greater variety of maps could be considered balanced be more fun to play and to watch?
@Everyone: I don't think Terran is overpowered. I don't think Zerg is underpowered. But I do think the way certain Terran and Zerg strengths/weaknesses interact is somewhat funky.
TL:NGTR: Early ZvT is a fragile matchup with a lot of very strong counters on both sides. If you exchanged the Terran's and Zerg's ability to scout in the early game, Terrans would be squealing just as hard as Zerg are now.
Consider Protoss, who are in the same boat as Zerg as far as scouting and Terran aggressive options are concerned. Zealots and Stalkers with a sprinkling of sentries make a robust, all-purpose early game army, and the quantity and balance of those units can be adjusted as required - a bit like roach/ling in early ZvP. Even though Terran has the same wide range of aggressive options and an even greater ability to deny early scouting than he does versus Zerg, the mere existence, even in principle, of that all-purpose Protoss army (plus the Protoss ability to wall off if he feels like it) acts to stabilise the matchup.
Now think about TvZ. Here, the race that is at an early-game scouting disadvantage also has no safe, general-purpose army or turtle-mode to fall back on. The unit counters in TvZ are so strong - on both sides - that a disproportionate advantage is enjoyed by the race with the better ability to scout and the better ability to turtle if he sees something he doesn't like.
Imagine you took away the Terran's ability to scan and gave it to the Zerg queen. It would be a farce. "Oh look, you are doing X, I shall safely expand." "Oh look, you are making reactored barracks, I shall make banelings and fast-tech to lair for infestors." And that's without the ability to cheaply wall-in meanwhile!
Obviously the famous Zerg one-structure-tech-switch ability would exacerbate the issue if positions were reversed like that. And certainly it goes some way towards redressing the balance as things stand, by enabling more reactive play in the mid-late game. But in the early game, Zerg doesn't have the economy to support tech-switching. Right now, it feels like a bit of a lottery - a lottery where the Terran gets to turtle up and change the numbers if I happen to get it right
|
Autorepair is a travesty :p agreed. At least the attack priority of them
|
1 Techlabs:
Yeah they are nice but in counter you need them for EVERY Production building and they are relativly fragile.
2 Sensor Tower.
Does nothing good Mapcontrol wouldn´t do either. Zerg get cheap creep tumours and Protoss Hallucinations.
3 Medivacs:
The other races Transports are just as good and in many points better. They are however underaprechiated. Especially since they have additional mobility options. Nydus Worms and Warp-in.
4 Auto-Repair.
Without it repair in combat with SCVs would work exactly like they did in BW: not worth the effort.
|
SO what has to be addressed is to give terrans even more upgrades that makes terran weaker in the early game and stronger as the game progresses.
There is very weird logic afoot in sc2 where Zerg HAS to research upgrades for their units to even be remotely effective while the Terran has upgrades that strengthen already sick units. I really liked the suggestion to nerf medivac unit capacity and give them that back in the form of upgrades
I would suggest the following if I where not a terrible player:
Nerf marine hp by 10 and marauder hp by 20. Combat shields to 150/150 that gives both these units back 10 hp rather than the upgrade improving the unit, make the upgrades necessary for their units to be effective.
But given that I am horrible I really should just improve my game rather than make suggestions that won’t matter.
|
Raelcun, you pointed out some characteristics of the terran race, that in combination make them strong (cost-effectivenes & flexibility of mentioned units/buildings) AND easier to use compared to strong things from the other races (APM argument). I myself cannot really weigh these points against the other races because I main terran and I'm not that good of a player. But I stick around in the TL-Forums alot and also watch alot of sc2 replays & streams (as I have beend doing for BW since 4 years). So I think I understand what you are saying and I also belive that a solution can not be number-based. I also belive that at some point (probably later then sooner) Blizzard will react with a meaningfull change (not just some number adjusting).
That being said... I just am really frustrated how so many people are complaining about EVERY thing of the Terran race. I understand, that there are imbalances around, but it can not be everything about the race (or at least I think). Seriously, since release I have heard complaints about:
Siege Tank damage (in sieged mode)
Siege Tank aiming AI
PDD energy-effectiveness
Thor anti air splash
Thor anti air range
Ghost EMP area (too big)
Marauder Concussive Shells (should be on cooldown)
Marauder combined with Stimpack
Reaper timing
Reaper speed
MULE macro advantage
MULE repair
Missile Turret (build time & damage)
Bunker Salvage ability
Viking range
Terrans are unscoutable until too late
even Supply Depots lower ability
and your points:
Sensor Tower strenght
Medivacs ambivalent uses
SCV auto repair
Tech Labs (flexibility of Terran tech routes)
I thank you for trying to deeper understand the probable imbalances of the game, and not just blaming it on some units. I really hope Blizzard does some meaningfull change rather sooner then later. I might even switch my race to Zerg just so that not EVERY-TL-Strategy post is about how my race is superior than the others...
|
i dont think those points are all really all that valid. And this actually is one sided. Yes i am myself a terran player and no im not like some people that bitch about how op another race is everytime i lose. But yes even i think terran is op. But not in the ways mentioned. The sensor tower? You have to ask. What does it do that makes it so strong? It scouts the area around it. What about pro detectors that can scout your base and expansions sometimes undetected the whole match and can see exactly what is being built and and not only red dots on the map. What about overlords that can scout any area of the map with no real micro needed, can lay creep anywhere which can slow down and sometimes prevent expands and practically dont cost anything since they are basically flying supply depots that can be upgraded. Scvs being a problem because they can repair? If i remember it costs resources. And can be easily wiped out by a well placed psi storm or burrowed bling? toss buildings and units regenerate shields + zerg units regenerate on creep free of charge. Even if it is at a slower rate. Another thing. It cant be said that labs and reactors are an advantage. 1. They are flimsy. Taking out a tech lap limits the units that can be built there until it is rebuilt which forces a terran to build low level units or nothing at all until its rebuilt which gives you time to build beter units which can be done very quickly with p and z. My points about medivacs have already been mentioned. I do agree its a bit unfair that rauders can stim though. It effectively doubles an army for a few seconds. But when you look at how many units z can build at a time and how quickly you can get p units around the map i think its only fair.
|
Imo, one small adjustment other than nerfing damge or build time, pottentially could fix balance. I think, the problems other races have dealing with T, is that T has the ability to go every Tech without making any commitments early game.
My suggestion: just make lifting buildings cost a small amount of gas/mins, 25/25 for instance, or 0/50. This forces T to choose a Tech early game, and thus good scouting can make the difference.
In the current situation, even if you scout pertfectly and react acoordingly, T switches Tech without having made any real investments in their previous tech.
I don't think medivacs, auto repair, stimmed mauraders or whatever are the real problems, they can all be countered when scouted. Just force some commitment to a Tech pattern, that's all.
|
So you want to eliminate timing drops?
So you think its fine that Zerg can simply spread creep and get FULL vision of everything on creep, AND post overlords all over the map but Terran having minimap blips after building a gas costly building is IMBA? kk...
The sad thing is most people will probably agree with the post because it has pictures and italics and cries for Terran nerfs.
|
On September 10 2010 22:02 trevf wrote:
So you want to eliminate timing drops?
So you think its fine that Zerg can simply spread creep and get FULL vision of everything on creep, AND post overlords all over the map but Terran having minimap blips after building a gas costly building is IMBA? kk...
The sad thing is most people will probably agree with the post because it has pictures and italics and cries for Terran nerfs.
lol i hear that! But then again. Check any sc2 forum and see the same thing. Im actually getting annoyed with reading the same bs on every blog.
|
Terran is IMBA we all know, blizzard knows... it's a matter of WILL to balance things now or not.
Maybe they don't want to balance and leave things as they are because the game is called wings of liberty... they'll balance zerg in heart of swarm and protoss in legacy of the void.
LOL
|
I just want EMP nerfed
|
I think the ease of drops for terran, especially when combined with even small numbers of stimmed marauders is the most imbalanced thing right now.
I think protoss clearly has it the worst when it comes to drops, warp prisms just take up too much time from robo facs, and are too expensive and vulnerable. The warp in mechanic is nice, but definitely doesn't make up how difficult it is to get enough warp prisms to do a threatening drop, not to mention you pretty much have to get speed if you don't want to lose them all to vikings.
|
On September 10 2010 20:51 Arokh wrote:
That being said... I just am really frustrated how so many people are complaining about EVERY thing of the Terran race. I understand, that there are imbalances around, but it can not be everything about the race (or at least I think). Seriously, since release I have heard complaints about: [...]
lol that's kinda the point....while zerg's options are really limited in ZvT and protoss' options being at least decimated to the point where it's either colossi or HT (unless you count void rays in) terrans have extremely many viable strats;
I do NOT think that any of these strats is "overpowered" by itself, but the easy tech-switch and the "un-scoutability" of these strats overall is the problem; if we look at GSL, only one korean terran-player has lost a TvP and this was a relatively unknown terran facing tester...probably the strongest protoss in the world right now;
obviously this doesn't say much about balance, it's just a couple of games: nevertheless it gets interesting if we analyze HOW all these terran-players managed to beat their protoss-counterparts; if we take a closer look we see that most of these wins come down to:
a) timing pushes that are
b) nearly always carried out differently
we have seen:
1.) early marauder nexus-sniping
2.) early battlecruiser + scv-repair + MM
3.) banshees + raven + marines
4.) tanks + marines
5.) mass-marines
6.) mid-game MMM + viking
now obviously not every strat can be "imbalanced", claiming so would be ridiculous; imbalanced is the sheer variety of "workable" stuff that always requires a near perfect response; the protoss may get an early robo for scout + immortal, but then he gets overrun by banshees or probably just mass-marines if the ramp is big ([s]crap station); the protoss may go for pure warpgate, but this obviously isn't viable against standard-MMM; etc. etc.
at this point the tech-lab comes into play: unless you go for 1 gate into robo (or go for phoenixes) it is completely impossible to predict which tech-route the terran will choose; and by going 1 gate robo you have already limited your options
recently socke had great success by going early phoenixes: although I admire his playstyle, it is really crucial to deal a good amount of harassment-damage to justify their cost; basicly you can't kill anything with phoenixes vs T; vs zerg you can at least kill overloards and deny their mass-expos; but T doesn't rely on early expansions, so going phoenixes vs T is a very tricky task; you will never be able to attack until late-game when you have HT, because there won't be any immortal-support; also if you don't manage to pin the T in his base you may just lose against a marine/marauder-push
unit-wise there are currently three problems
a) marauders vs buildings - the rate how fast they snipe anything is ridiculous and forces counter-all-ins
b) medivacs having both heal and drop without research; as being said, there is no real punishment for choosing a drop-based play
c) EMP without research: doesn't make any sense; why do other races need to invest money and time at researching useful stuff while T get the EMP right away; think about it this way: do you think ANYBODY would have complained if EMP had required a research in the first place?
|
I'm someone has pointed out that you've missed mules and the awesomeness of econ advantage especially when casting 8 on a gold patch at once >_<
|
1. Are you truly claiming that tech switch is easier for terran than for zerg or that it is harder to tell what's coming? Apparently floating magically turns your barracks into factories and eggs have printed on top what's going to pop from them.
2. Are you truly claiming that sensor towers are a better tool for map awareness than creep / mobile floating farms? Or that you can't "counter" them? Here is a thought, kill them. They aren't exactly invisible and cost more than an initial 25 energy to reproduce.
3. I am not even sure why I am replying but how is drop play harder in any way for the other races? You make it sound like it comes for free because medivacs are already in the terran game plan whereas overlords / lair / warp tech are some unorthodox route. It is not an additional perk, it is part of the reason medivacs are there to begin with. If you want drop play include it in your game plan and pay its price just like everybody else does.
4. Again you make it sound like SCVs come for free or that auto repair takes less APM than shield regen. Regardless of race if two equal sized armies clash but one of the players brings all his workes to the battle in addition guess who is going to win? This is not a terran specific thing. What IS though is the choice to repair instead of acting as cannon fodder but then of course you forgo the added DPS. I will admit that attack priority is a problem, but that is about it.
I am not in any way implying terran has it the hardest, I am saying for every random fact you pulled there are similar mechanics for the other races that make it equal in the end. Funny how terran is imbalanced here and protoss is imbalanced on the asian servers. If anything this signals that Blizzard needs to have a look at zerg. Even out the curve so they are stronger early game and you have a pretty balanced game.
|
man why so much terran hate, you bunch of racists.
Oh well i guess,
![[image loading]](http://knowyourmeme.com/i/000/043/917/original/hatersgonnapanda.jpg?1269196691)
User was temp banned for this post.
|
So judging by this thread, every Terran unit is OP?
|
On September 10 2010 22:45 nailertn wrote:
4. Again you make it sound like SCVs come for free or that auto repair takes less APM than shield regen. Regardless of race if two equal sized armies clash but one of the players brings all his workes to the battle in addition guess who is going to win? This is not a terran specific thing. What IS though is the choice to repair instead of acting as cannon fodder but then of course you forgo the added DPS. I will admit that attack priority is a problem, but that is about it.
Attack priority is not A problem it's THE problem.And when you have mules you can afford to send 4/5 scv-s.Don't you think it is fucking ridiculous how scv-s can just surround a planetary fortress and you have to manually target them otherwise your army melts?Not to mention thor rushes when you can't even click the scv because it gets covered by the thor(you have to like zoom in and rotate screen to find them lol).....
Also PLEASE don't even try to compare shield regen to auto repair.
|
On September 10 2010 23:00 nafta wrote:
And when you have mules you can afford to send 4/5 scv-s
How many probes can a protoss afford to send due to chronoboost?
|
Every week you post three different reasons for Terran being overpowered. Make up your mind, this is getting tedious.
|
On September 10 2010 23:03 babolatt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 23:00 nafta wrote:
And when you have mules you can afford to send 4/5 scv-s How many probes can a protoss afford to send due to chronoboost?
Mules are free and scv-s are actually useful in combat yet you compare them to probes?NICE.
And yes every single chrono boost goes to probes.It's not like you need to chrono all your units from robo/stargate(or your first gateway units) or your upgrades lol silly protoss players.
|
On September 10 2010 23:03 babolatt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 23:00 nafta wrote:
And when you have mules you can afford to send 4/5 scv-s How many probes can a protoss afford to send due to chronoboost?
Who comes out ahead if both players lose an equal amount of probes/scvs?
|
Repair during combat should be significantly less effective than repair out of combat. Protoss shields don't regenerate during combat, likewise Zerg health regeneration is slower in combat compared to health regeneration out of combat.
Both Z/P are unable to send probes with their army because Drones/Probes are significantly weaker than SCVs. All early game units, towards workers, do 5-10 damage and the extra 5 health on the SCV means that a unit requires an extra hit to kill it off (5 Stalker hits compared to 4). This makes a massive difference. Also, Mules renegerate loss of SCVs far faster than Drones/Probes do with massive macro through larva spit/chrono boost. It's stupid to argue otherwise.
|
On September 10 2010 22:20 eu.exodus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 22:02 trevf wrote:
So you want to eliminate timing drops?
So you think its fine that Zerg can simply spread creep and get FULL vision of everything on creep, AND post overlords all over the map but Terran having minimap blips after building a gas costly building is IMBA? kk...
The sad thing is most people will probably agree with the post because it has pictures and italics and cries for Terran nerfs. lol i hear that! But then again. Check any sc2 forum and see the same thing. Im actually getting annoyed with reading the same bs on every blog.
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.
The OP is seriously misguided in his statement that every Terran player must build medivacs. Sorry Raelcun, but thats a stupid assertion. Isn't it obvious that medivacs are NOT the terran equivalent of overlords? Wouldn't the Terran equivalent of overlords be supply depots given that they are both 100 min cost, supply 8 and have their own unique features (scouting ability of overlord and walling ability of depots)? Upgrading to lair spend 300/300 and to get 8 or 10 speed increased + dropping capable overlords is somehow FAR WORSE than rax --> fax --> starport --> 300/300 for 3 medivacs. Come on man.
|
LOL terran fans are coming to the rescue of their race...
I'm actually losing faith in blizzard... these issues should be really obvious but they seems like...
"I do not care if a protoss player needs to be BISU to beat a random terran that abuse his race mechanic"
The problem is that Terran has so many openings, very difficult to spot what opening is taking... and when you have obs out if he decided to do an ALL in push it's already too late to counter.
And if you extracautious to evade a possible all in push, the terran could have gone for the eco advantage and you'll be behind... that's because he can build the command behind his wall.
|
On September 10 2010 22:45 nailertn wrote:
1. Are you truly claiming that tech switch is easier for terran than for zerg or that it is harder to tell what's coming? Apparently floating magically turns your barracks into factories and eggs have printed on top what's going to pop from them.
2. Are you truly claiming that sensor towers are a better tool for map awareness than creep / mobile floating farms? Or that you can't "counter" them? Here is a thought, kill them. They aren't exactly invisible and cost more than an initial 25 energy to reproduce.
3. I am not even sure why I am replying but how is drop play harder in any way for the other races? You make it sound like it comes for free because medivacs are already in the terran game plan whereas overlords / lair / warp tech are some unorthodox route. It is not an additional perk, it is part of the reason medivacs are there to begin with. If you want drop play include it in your game plan and pay its price just like everybody else does.
4. Again you make it sound like SCVs come for free or that auto repair takes less APM than shield regen. Regardless of race if two equal sized armies clash but one of the players brings all his workes to the battle in addition guess who is going to win? This is not a terran specific thing. What IS though is the choice to repair instead of acting as cannon fodder but then of course you forgo the added DPS. I will admit that attack priority is a problem, but that is about it.
I am not in any way implying terran has it the hardest, I am saying for every random fact you pulled there are similar mechanics for the other races that make it equal in the end. Funny how terran is imbalanced here and protoss is imbalanced on the asian servers. If anything this signals that Blizzard needs to have a look at zerg. Even out the curve so they are stronger early game and you have a pretty balanced game.
1 it is much harder to tell what is coming. tech switches for zerg are easier (given enough resources) but you can allways tell what is coming since there is a building somewhere indicating which units the zerg can produce. just take 5 rax reaper effectiveness as an example which is only good because of the easy tech switch to marauders if roaches are coming (else you would be dead here).
2 a sensor tower is normally located in a fortified position with towers and/or tanks. it will cover all possible entrances to the base nonetheless. good players will also kill the creep tumors before they can spread out too far and they will mostly not face any resistance because the zerg would have to move of creep.
3 drop play is harder for zergs because they have to INVEST into drops (200/200 at least if you don't count overlord speed) whereas terrans WILL get medivacs and can CHOOSE to drop. it is OPTIONAL since your medivacs are not wasted minerals/gas and will help you in any fight with bio. also there is the threat of being dropped whenever medivacs are present and combined with the power of marauders against buildings those drops are scary. it does not eliminate drop play when there is a cost involved... dunno what terrans are thinking. maybe they think every upgrade for them should be free as if the upgrade costs of terrans (mostly 50/50 some 100/100) are not already a choke compared to the essential upgrades of protoss/zerg which cost 150/150 or even 200/200.
4 compairing auto repair with shield regen is ridiculous. you know shields do not regenerate in combat??? at least you should...
so to answer your question, yes if a protoss wanted to save units via shield regenerate he would have to micro them back one by one. this is actually pretty micro intensive. and try bringing workers against a meching terran and see how much of an impact they will have against hellions or tanks. probably somewhere around zero.
tldr; this post is to explain to all the terrans that there view is heavily biased. i'm not calling for terran nerfs but anyone should note that there are pretty big and obvious design flaws when you compare the races. and these have nothing to do with making races equal or other bullshit arguments against this. it's straight up facts. just count the number of upgrades and look what they do across all races and you will see terran come out on top by far...
best solution would be to add some viable upgrades to protoss and zerg so every race has the options terrans have now and is fun to play. but that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
On September 10 2010 23:07 Cranberries wrote:
Repair during combat should be significantly less effective than repair out of combat. Protoss shields don't regenerate during combat, likewise Zerg health regeneration is slower in combat compared to health regeneration out of combat.
Both Z/P are unable to send probes with their army because Drones/Probes are significantly weaker than SCVs. All early game units, towards workers, do 5-10 damage and the extra 5 health on the SCV means that a unit requires an extra hit to kill it off (5 Stalker hits compared to 4). This makes a massive difference. Also, Mules renegerate loss of SCVs far faster than Drones/Probes do with massive macro through larva spit/chrono boost. It's stupid to argue otherwise.
This guy is a confirmed map hacker -- please ignore (or ban, which would be even better).
|
On September 10 2010 23:18 fleeze wrote:
it's straight up facts.
I don't think you know what facts means.
|
On September 10 2010 23:22 babolatt wrote:I don't think you know what facts means.
you should at least read the post...
reading comprehension makes you fail hard.
just count the number of upgrades and look what they do across all races and you will see terran come out on top by far
you did that?
|
On September 10 2010 23:07 Cranberries wrote:
Repair during combat should be significantly less effective than repair out of combat. Protoss shields don't regenerate during combat, likewise Zerg health regeneration is slower in combat compared to health regeneration out of combat.
Both Z/P are unable to send probes with their army because Drones/Probes are significantly weaker than SCVs. All early game units, towards workers, do 5-10 damage and the extra 5 health on the SCV means that a unit requires an extra hit to kill it off (5 Stalker hits compared to 4). This makes a massive difference. Also, Mules renegerate loss of SCVs far faster than Drones/Probes do with massive macro through larva spit/chrono boost. It's stupid to argue otherwise.
You're completely disregarding the fact that toss shields and zerg health both regen on their own, without any apm investment or any cost (repairing Terran units costs both gas, minerals, and mining time.
To your second point, that drones / probes are significantly weaker than scv's. I would very well argue that probes are a much more desirable unit for both harass and base construction than the SCV. Due to the fact that sheilds regen quickly probes can easily exchange 3 or 4 hits with an scv and then run for 10 - 15 seconds then do it again and the scv will have to retreat to the min line to be repaired whiel the probe is now free to harass scv's taht may be building rax or depots. The terran can counter the probes fast regen shields by bringing two scv's and repairing the one being attacked. This is countered by simply running the probe and enjoying an economic advantage as Terran pulls too many workers off his line to keep up w/ chrono boosted probes.
|
Also, how is this not an IMBA post? please retitle the thread so it says: Another zerg player's suggestions for nerfs to Terran.
|
On September 10 2010 22:02 trevf wrote:
So you want to eliminate timing drops?
So you think its fine that Zerg can simply spread creep and get FULL vision of everything on creep, AND post overlords all over the map but Terran having minimap blips after building a gas costly building is IMBA? kk...
The sad thing is most people will probably agree with the post because it has pictures and italics and cries for Terran nerfs.
Hello Mr. I Only Play Terran. You may not know this but creep tumors and overlords giving map vision can be countered. Creep tumors take a long time to spread across the entire map (not to mention that it requires additional actions and multitasking) and with overlords you're sacrificing your supply for information. Sensor towers sitting inside a terrans base surrounded by his army/base defenses can not be countered and require absolutely nothing from the terran skill wise besides not being oblivious to the minimap.
It also happens that researching OL speed and drop pretty much equals the cost of 3 sensor towers. Enough to essentially drop proof terran 3 base. Way more than that on smaller maps.
|
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.
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.
Isn't it obvious that medivacs are NOT the terran equivalent of overlords?
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.
|
On September 10 2010 23:31 trevf wrote:
Also, how is this not an IMBA post? please retitle the thread so it says: Another zerg player's suggestions for nerfs to Terran.
it is a post directed at general design flaws in the game that should be fixed. with pretty well argumented points.
if i look at your last posts on the other hand...
|
On September 10 2010 22:45 nailertn wrote:
and protoss is imbalanced on the asian servers.
Pretty funny joke.
|
On September 10 2010 23:00 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 22:45 nailertn wrote:
4. Again you make it sound like SCVs come for free or that auto repair takes less APM than shield regen. Regardless of race if two equal sized armies clash but one of the players brings all his workes to the battle in addition guess who is going to win? This is not a terran specific thing. What IS though is the choice to repair instead of acting as cannon fodder but then of course you forgo the added DPS. I will admit that attack priority is a problem, but that is about it.
Attack priority is not A problem it's THE problem.And when you have mules you can afford to send 4/5 scv-s.Don't you think it is fucking ridiculous how scv-s can just surround a planetary fortress and you have to manually target them otherwise your army melts?Not to mention thor rushes when you can't even click the scv because it gets covered by the thor(you have to like zoom in and rotate screen to find them lol)..... Also PLEASE don't even try to compare shield regen to auto repair.
dude. You dont hear anyone bitching when you have an army under a momship that you cant see even when you zoom in. Its the whole point of doing it. Also if youre attacking a planetary fortress it means that you are trying to harrass. I dont remember a single time that i saw one in someones main. When youre harrasing the whole point is to click on workers. Also if the plan is to attack one do so from above and it wont bother you. Not so? Another thing. If a guy has to take all of his scvs off his minerals to youre doing a better job of harassing him than if you had to snipe them off one by one.
|
Good post. One alternative change to medivac would be to make the healing an upgrade, and not the transport.
This would make terrans a lot more conscious about using stim early, taking away some of the early threat of marauders. Would also probably make them delay medivacs altogether, so high ground can be used for defense a little longer.
It really was and still is a strange pattern how so many very powerful abilities of the terrans were and are activated by default (from concussive shells to thor barrage), whereas almost every special ability of every other race needed and needs to be researched.
|
On September 10 2010 23:52 eu.exodus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2010 23:00 nafta wrote:On September 10 2010 22:45 nailertn wrote:
4. Again you make it sound like SCVs come for free or that auto repair takes less APM than shield regen. Regardless of race if two equal sized armies clash but one of the players brings all his workes to the battle in addition guess who is going to win? This is not a terran specific thing. What IS though is the choice to repair instead of acting as cannon fodder but then of course you forgo the added DPS. I will admit that attack priority is a problem, but that is about it.
Attack priority is not A problem it's THE problem.And when you have mules you can afford to send 4/5 scv-s.Don't you think it is fucking ridiculous how scv-s can just surround a planetary fortress and you have to manually target them otherwise your army melts?Not to mention thor rushes when you can't even click the scv because it gets covered by the thor(you have to like zoom in and rotate screen to find them lol)..... Also PLEASE don't even try to compare shield regen to auto repair. dude. You dont hear anyone bitching when you have an army under a momship that you cant see even when you zoom in. Its the whole point of doing it. Also if youre attacking a planetary fortress it means that you are trying to harrass. I dont remember a single time that i saw one in someones main. When youre harrasing the whole point is to click on workers. Also if the plan is to attack one do so from above and it wont bother you. Not so? Another thing. If a guy has to take all of his scvs off his minerals to youre doing a better job of harassing him than if you had to snipe them off one by one.
Planetary Fortress can take out 80 supply armies by itself whether you try to burst it down or kill scvs you always come out at a disadvantage fighting one unless you hit it with air or huge numbers of units.
|
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!
|
On September 10 2010 22:45 nailertn wrote:
2. Are you truly claiming that sensor towers are a better tool for map awareness than creep / mobile floating farms? Or that you can't "counter" them? Here is a thought, kill them. They aren't exactly invisible and cost more than an initial 25 energy to reproduce.
4. Again you make it sound like SCVs come for free or that auto repair takes less APM than shield regen. Regardless of race if two equal sized armies clash but one of the players brings all his workes to the battle in addition guess who is going to win? This is not a terran specific thing. What IS though is the choice to repair instead of acting as cannon fodder but then of course you forgo the added DPS. I will admit that attack priority is a problem, but that is about it.
.
2. So u think all Terrans make these towers AWAY from their base and have them standing on their own? dont be daft. They are normally intheir base in postiions that cant be swiped quickly simply ebcause of the large area of cover. I think if they had a smaller range they would be fine and im also shocked that they arent used a LOT more in 1v1 and 2v2,
4. The problem with the SCV's repairing is that it is hard when your in a battle to focus on the scv's that are infront where you cant visibily see and all units such as zealots etc simply ignore them tryign to hit the Thor. Which isnt right.
|
Terran isn't op, but P and Z are up. Terran is where it belongs. There units work well together and you can mix and match tech to get effective unit compositions. The goal should be to develop the other races to match Terran. Maybe a significantly faster build time on Warp Prisms? Cheaper/faster overlord speed? Nydus worms unload speed based on unit food (really backing this one ultras should pop at current speed and lings at around 4 times that speed, since 12 seems imba). Maybe cheaper CANCELLEABLE (just tested on nydus entrance and exit) nydus worms would help. To deal with the sensor tower what if Overseers didn't show on the mini map from sensor tower? All of the sudden I think TvnonT balance might shift to nonT if all of these were enacted.
|
QQ XD The problem is stim marauder. Remove that stim from marauder please. 4xmarauders can destroy a hatchery with stim with ease while the main force reeking havoc at your front line. That's Effing OP.
|
[QUOTE]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.
You Fail at your entire post, but mainly on this point. You are mentioning some of the best zergs in the world who are beating terrans 2 or 3 times lower then their skill level. When you get someone on the equal skill level you can clearly see the imbalance issue. Example is that idra losing to morrow @ IEM is a joke. Morrow is a great player, but idra is clearly the better player. People who sit and cry about imba really gets on my nerves, but ignorant players who wont acknowledge its extremely more difficult at the moment to succeed as zerg then it as terran is even more retarded, which most of you are terran users. Imbalance becomes a issue when it takes 3-4x the skill to stop something then it does to execute or visa versa. Example of broodwar is, a terran timing push early game required alot of skill to stop it and to execute it properly, which made it extremely more balanced then the timing pushes zerg have to deal with in sc2. With that being said, i love sc2 and I never blame losses on imba,I just hate when the OP makes a great point on alot of things and then I read these post of the terran users just not even reading his points and neglecting issues because you are bias to your race, that is dumb and ignorant.
|
Has there been more than a select few P's, Z's or R's defending terran, or is it just terrans? that probably never play the other races except a few team games?
|
Zealots running in circles while 8 scv's repair the single thor has made me rage multiple times. Blizz really needs to fix scv repair priority ASAP.
|
I agree with the medivac argument. Bring medics and dropships back.
|
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 looks like the terrans already had their 2 expension set on them... the number of options that you have is overwhelming and terrans arent punished enough for a failed cheese.
|
I like the suggestions, maybe implement one at a time and see how it goes...
One thing I think can really be used for the tech lab / reactor is cooldown when you decide to lift off and switch buildings. Maybe a 10 second delay for the building to detach from the tech lab and another 5 seconds for it to be attached to a new building.
I am a terran player and I honestly believe the tech switch is too easy and responsive.
|
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.
|
great post by OP, wouldn't an easier fix to scv auto repair be to just have it back to BW repair style?
|
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.
yeah, switch to toss and cry when some douchebag builds a thor behind his wall after like 4 minutes of play and moves out with three marines, a thor, and every scv. It's impossible to stop.
The repair priority is the only one of these that I think is feasible, and should be implemented.
|
On September 10 2010 23:55 vrok wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 11 2010 00:29 eu.exodus wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
[QUOTE]On September 11 2010 00:02 hawk123 wrote:
[QUOTE]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.
You Fail at your entire post, but mainly on this point. You are mentioning some of the best zergs in the world who are beating terrans 2 or 3 times lower then their skill level. When you get someone on the equal skill level you can clearly see the imbalance issue. Example is that idra losing to morrow @ IEM is a joke. Morrow is a great player, but idra is clearly the better player. People who sit and cry about imba really gets on my nerves, but ignorant players who wont acknowledge its extremely more difficult at the moment to succeed as zerg then it as terran is even more retarded, which most of you are terran users. Imbalance becomes a issue when it takes 3-4x the skill to stop something then it does to execute or visa versa. Example of broodwar is, a terran timing push early game required alot of skill to stop it and to execute it properly, which made it extremely more balanced then the timing pushes zerg have to deal with in sc2. With that being said, i love sc2 and I never blame losses on imba,I just hate when the OP makes a great point on alot of things and then I read these post of the terran users just not even reading his points and neglecting issues because you are bias to your race, that is dumb and ignorant.[/QUOTE]
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE.
|
On September 11 2010 00:16 Cranberries wrote:
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.
i don't agree with this, marauders are meant to counter stalkers. thinking further your way, lets buff a roach, so it trades equally with marauder. lol.
stalkers beat marines, and zealots beat marauders AND marines. add templars, which own marines. for terran the templar is replaced with ghost, and where 2 psi storms totally KILL marines, 2 EMPs dont kill any protoss unit.
theres no such thing as tiers in this game. its not friggin supreme commander, where t2 always beats t1. higher tech only means that you pay more for a unit. 'tiers' in sc2 is just how much tech you need, not how much better the unit will be, REALIZE THAT ALREADY.
also, terrans have medivacs, while tosses can warpgate units anywhere on the map. they even transfer new units imidietaly to enemy base via warpprisms/proxy pylons. zergs have lots of overlords and nydus worms. its pretty even if you think of drop capability, in my sense.
and medivacs need to be able to heal, because zergs and toss have auto regen, terrans dont.
about tech labs - yeah sure, it is possible to switch techs fast, but its not as good as you may think it is. you have lots of vary tech units, but you just dont have a lot of them. actually, i think zerg can tech switch way better, because hes got 1 unit producing structure. for example when u have 4 hatches, and u build roach warren, you can imidietaly build like 15 roaches, but when youre terran and you want to switch from bio to tech, you need additional factories.
sensor towers, yeah theyre great, but zerg has overlords, which are 'free scouting units' and toss have invisible observers. while enemy knows where you have your sensor tower, he wont know where are the observers. and with overlords - you just have so many of them, that you dont care about losing one.
i never used fast thor + scvs strat, so i wont say anything bout it, but what i read here, it looks kinda cheesy maybe?
the only thing i would change with terrans, which i think isnt op, but its kinda... i dont know, it feels like it shouldnt be like that... its that you can save up energy for mules and spam at gold expo. make it time-based like zerg queens larva spawn.
|
On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE.
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.
|
^ complains about people complaining about his race
|
100% agreed here. all these issues made me wonder if terran isnt op long time ago, but im too lazy for long writeups like this. Unfortunately I dont see it changing, as the number tweaks that blizz likes to put out will not change anything as fundamental as this. I see walling / salvageable bunkers as another mechanic that works heavily in terrans favor. The thing is, terran has so many options that there is LOTS of room for improvement for them, while Z/P does not have that huge potential imo. What will probably happen is that Blizz keeps on nerfing the dominant T strategies at the time just to see new strats surfacing which make terrans dominate again. I expect a cycle like this to go on for at least 3-4 balance patches tbh :/
|
On September 11 2010 00:43 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. 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.
|
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.
|
On September 11 2010 00:36 vrok wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 11 2010 00:46 kosai wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:43 Cranberries wrote:On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. 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.
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.
|
On September 11 2010 00:46 kosai wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:43 Cranberries wrote:On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. 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.
Actually the split was 26 P / 21 T / 15 Z if I recall correctly.
|
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
|
On September 11 2010 00:47 eu.exodus wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
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.
|
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.
|
The issue for me with Terran is the way that Tanks have changed from BW. In BW you had your ball of tanks and they'd blast the shit out of that first zergling letting the others run up and wreck havok. Zealot bombing? Hell yes!
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.
|
On September 11 2010 00:51 eu.exodus wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
Definitely agree with the Medivac. It should only be able to transport like 4 supply of units or something and you have to upgrade it to 8. Give you a bit more time before they can pull off the "HOLYFUCKINGSHIT8MARAUDERSORHELLIONSGOODBYEECONOMYLOSEGAME" maneuver.
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.
|
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.
|
This is the most in depth well analyzed thread on Terran imbalance I've read so far. Very well written and to the point. I couldn't agree more with everything OP said. Now if blizzard will just do something about it...
|
Best OP in a while. All those things you wrote are fine imo.
|
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.
|
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. 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.
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.
|
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.
|
On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE.
IdrA is a better player than MorroW. His skill overcomes the imbalance to give him a higher win rate than other Zergs. This happens with other players such as DIMAGA, Sen, Cool and Check which is why you see Zergs in Pro-leagues.
Zerg is harder to play than Terran.
I've played both races; Zerg is much harder to play on a higher level.
|
On September 10 2010 11:35 LuciferSC wrote:
I have no idea why u guys are QQing with balance.
Look at the current SC2 top leagues and tournaments.
I don't see Terrans dominating.
The game is balanced out well, no need for major fix or altering game play.
You're right; you have no idea.
|
This started out as a IMBA thread claiming it wasn't an IMBA thread and its simply degenerated into an exchange of illogical proposals for terran nerfs.
|
On September 11 2010 02:15 Fantistic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. IdrA is a better player than MorroW. His skill overcomes the imbalance to give him a higher win rate than other Zergs. This happens with other players such as DIMAGA, Sen, Cool and Check which is why you see Zergs in Pro-leagues. Zerg is harder to play than Terran. I've played both races; Zerg is much harder to play on a higher level.
Similar to how in BW terran requires the most apm?
|
I agree with a lot of this... medivacs are so powerful right now and offer the terran a lot of drop possibilites 'for free' (in the sense that no upgrade for that is needed)
|
As far as the sensor tower is concerned I think an easy fix would be to still have the units show up on the minimap but only while the sensor tower is selected. In this way the terran will still have great value for their investment while offering other races a chance to beat the tower.
|
How about a modification to sensor towers - instead of scanning the entire area around them, they scan a designated area within a certain range?
This would introduce strategy in the form of choosing which areas the sensor towers should scan, and open up decisions for opponents with regards to where they should attack(since they could see the chosen scan area).
|
On September 11 2010 02:18 trevf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 02:15 Fantistic wrote:On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. IdrA is a better player than MorroW. His skill overcomes the imbalance to give him a higher win rate than other Zergs. This happens with other players such as DIMAGA, Sen, Cool and Check which is why you see Zergs in Pro-leagues. Zerg is harder to play than Terran. I've played both races; Zerg is much harder to play on a higher level. Similar to how in BW terran requires the most apm?
Let's leave BW and apm out of this.
|
Very good OP- particularly about medivacs. Making dropships in BW meant a sacrifice of resources so it required a firm decision by the player. Making medivacs in SC2 however is pretty much a foregone conclusion when the player is going bio most of the time. This means drops become too much of an easy extra option for terran players when compared with the other races because they already have the drop tech provided with the medivacs.
|
On the techlab versatility: I think since Terran is a race based on efficiency and modularity, it is okay to have such versatility on the labs, however I'd like to see an increase in their cost/build time. Marauders are no longer this core unit because they nulify a threat (roaches, 4warpgate attacks), they are a core unit because it is extremely powerful and mobile. As a P player and former Random player, I can say that you always need to be defensive vs. Terran. There is no way to tweak your BO so that you're the aggressor early on, without either risking an all-in or putting yourself at a great disadvantage.
P has a good timing attack with gateway units due to Guardian Shield, but that is easily countered with BO (ghosts) or micro (earlier timing attack, marauder-stim sniping of the sentry, or even just map presence to force the Guardian shield too early).
Now the roaches have been nerfed, and zealots will be nerfed too; instead of nerfing reaper build time, nerf the techlabs. Just tweaking build time/ cost would be great, but even more creative solutions, i.e. increase the build time for tech labs and reactors on other buildings than factories, would be awesome
Make medivacs only capable of carrying light units early on. As a plot excuse, say that they can't work on the same engines the previous dropship worked on because of all the medical apparatus. Also make them slower at that. Make an upgrade for the engines at the starport techlab for them to carry armored units and increase movement speed to what it is today.
This means that eraly on they can carry SCVs, MULEs, marines, reapers, hellions, ghosts. Later on they can carry marauders, tanks, thors, vikings.
The speed nerf means the bio army's mobility is reduced by a little bit, and also constitutes a very slight nerf to stim, since it'll leave the marauders a bit more vulnerable.
The Sensor Tower is easy to balance by tweaking constants. Make it more expensive, increase its build time, reduce hitpoints, reduce range or require hi-sec auto tracking to increase its range, MAKE CONTAMINATE DISABLE THEM TEMPORARILY, all these should work... -_- sorry for the allcaps. Just a kind rage scream from a fellow protoss player to our beloved ugly-looking bretheren against these small short-lived humanoids that wear armor and wield projectile-based weaponry.
Autorepair SCV priority has been since the beta with the "PF issue"... I wonder Why hasn't Blizzard fixed this yet! Seriously, this is insanely stupid and should've been fixed in the beta!
The only possible reason I can think up for this is that Blizzard wants us to use the Camera panning buttons in game.
Actually, the whole auto-targeting system is a pretty huge failure by Blizzard... Drive a single search for valid targets in a way that the closest one is chosen to be attacked. Simple to program, requires less undescribed rules in the game, gives more control to the player, helps rising the skill ceiling without raging lower skill levels (since those battles will be decided by who macroes better anyway).
|
10387 Posts
On September 11 2010 02:18 trevf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 02:15 Fantistic wrote:On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. IdrA is a better player than MorroW. His skill overcomes the imbalance to give him a higher win rate than other Zergs. This happens with other players such as DIMAGA, Sen, Cool and Check which is why you see Zergs in Pro-leagues. Zerg is harder to play than Terran. I've played both races; Zerg is much harder to play on a higher level. Similar to how in BW terran requires the most apm?
Actually BW Pro Zergs have higher APM than BW Pro Terans on average :o
|
Because sensor towers make such a pivotal difference in 90% of terran games right?
|
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.
On September 11 2010 01:06 TMTurtle 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.
On September 11 2010 01:02 eu.exodus wrote:
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
There is an excellent idea hidden here that I will start to exploit in my own play.
"Standard" build orders, in an attempt to maximize efficiency, create only the buildings you need. Therefore, if a Z builds a spire the nature of efficient build orders will dictate that mutas are coming. I think Terrans are just more clever in their tech switches.
Personally, I think I will start building things like a roach warren and only build lings, or put up a spire and go roach/ling with the opportunity to switch it up later. If terran can mess with my head why can't I do the same?
|
On September 11 2010 02:43 Kazang wrote:
Because sensor towers make such a pivotal difference in 90% of terran games right?
Because sensor towers is are the only thing he mentioned in his OP right?
|
On September 11 2010 02:42 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 02:18 trevf wrote:On September 11 2010 02:15 Fantistic wrote:On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. IdrA is a better player than MorroW. His skill overcomes the imbalance to give him a higher win rate than other Zergs. This happens with other players such as DIMAGA, Sen, Cool and Check which is why you see Zergs in Pro-leagues. Zerg is harder to play than Terran. I've played both races; Zerg is much harder to play on a higher level. Similar to how in BW terran requires the most apm? Actually BW Pro Zergs have higher APM than BW Pro Terans on average :o
Lies!!! Im pretty sure terran required the most but w/e i got no proof
|
oh great it's THIS thread again...
|
I think those are decent points. However I do have on problem...
Make a toggle on scvs so that when they are repairing they are a higher priority unit similar to the one for when they are attacking, this is mostly because of the fact that it can be difficult to focus fire units behind a thor, under a battlecruiser as opposed to a Medivac which already is a high priority unit but flies above everything else and is inherently easier to target as needed.
The problem here is if the SCVs are going to be taking more fire they will need more hp or they will die the second the fighting starts.
|
On September 11 2010 02:57 Mayerling wrote:I think those are decent points. However I do have on problem... Show nested quote +Make a toggle on scvs so that when they are repairing they are a higher priority unit similar to the one for when they are attacking, this is mostly because of the fact that it can be difficult to focus fire units behind a thor, under a battlecruiser as opposed to a Medivac which already is a high priority unit but flies above everything else and is inherently easier to target as needed.
The problem here is if the SCVs are going to be taking more fire they will need more hp or they will die the second the fighting starts.
Why is it a problem if SCVs die fast? They're not combat units. Repair should be, in a dominating fashion, an out of combat ability rather than some "repair in combat and be unkillable" tool.
|
Pretty sure I disagree with #1 entirely. If a 3rax bio T wants to switch to Raven Banshee Marine, it's not the addons that are expensive, it's getting a 150/100 factory and then a 150/100 Starport x2. This is significantly more difficult than Zerg's putting down a 150/0 Roach warren. It's somewhat comparable to a Protoss going Twilight Council -> Templar or Stargate. Zerg remains the king of tech switches.
|
On September 11 2010 02:59 MangoTango wrote:
Pretty sure I disagree with #1 entirely. If a 3rax bio T wants to switch to Raven Banshee Marine, it's not the addons that are expensive, it's getting a 150/100 factory and then a 150/100 Starport x2. This is significantly more difficult than Zerg's putting down a 150/0 Roach warren. It's somewhat comparable to a Protoss going Twilight Council -> Templar or Stargate. Zerg remains the king of tech switches.
I think it's more that if your fast Banshee gets scouted, you can remove the tech lab from the starport and put it on the factory and you no longer are commiting to that fast Banshee. If a Protoss goes for a super fast Stargate and it's scouted, that Stargate is a Stargate and will remain pretty useless because defenses will be put in place. Likewise if a Zerg player's Spire is scouted adequate defenses can be put in place.
Terran are the only race that do not have to commit to a tech path because of the tech lab.
|
On September 11 2010 00:43 Cranberries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. 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.
It's actually TvZ 3-1.
Idra is the only player to have won a ZvT series. In the other matches MaruPrime, TLO and Nexliveforever all won their best ofs.
|
Also with the sensor towers. When one goes up...EVERYONE knows exactly where it is. Its not hard to run in with a covert unit and snipe it out.
|
On September 11 2010 02:57 Mayerling wrote:I think those are decent points. However I do have on problem... Show nested quote +Make a toggle on scvs so that when they are repairing they are a higher priority unit similar to the one for when they are attacking, this is mostly because of the fact that it can be difficult to focus fire units behind a thor, under a battlecruiser as opposed to a Medivac which already is a high priority unit but flies above everything else and is inherently easier to target as needed.
The problem here is if the SCVs are going to be taking more fire they will need more hp or they will die the second the fighting starts.
That's the whole point...
On September 11 2010 03:20 Mayerling wrote:
Also with the sensor towers. When one goes up...EVERYONE knows exactly where it is. Its not hard to run in with a covert unit and snipe it out.
What covert unit? The roach that moves slow as sin and can't go up cliffs?
Or the DT which is more fragile than chinaware?
Nevermind the fact that one turret nullifies either of these "sniping" options.
|
On September 11 2010 03:20 Mayerling wrote:
Also with the sensor towers. When one goes up...EVERYONE knows exactly where it is. Its not hard to run in with a covert unit and snipe it out.
Yeah when it's inside an enemy base with missile turrets and other units protecting it it's a piece of cake to take it out!
|
On September 11 2010 03:18 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 00:43 Cranberries wrote:On September 11 2010 00:39 LuciferSC wrote:
Don't mean to start a flaming war, but just want to point out that you are not providing any supporting facts yourself.
Zerg isn't necessarily more difficult to play than Terrans and neither is Idra necessarily a better player than Morrow.
Look at it this way - if Terrans are clearly OP, u wouldn't see nothing but Terran on Pro-leagues.
Look how Zerg and Protoss are doing on GSL. They're doing FINE. 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. It's actually TvZ 3-1. Idra is the only player to have won a ZvT series. In the other matches MaruPrime, TLO and Nexliveforever all won their best ofs.
Yeah, it looks really grim for the zerg on the tourney front. There was no Zerg in the semifinals of the last thousand Go4Sc2, Viking, Zotac, Competo cups etc. Only 2 zergs out of 16 in the german EPS (one being darkforce) and one of the two will probably be kicked out.
I think the problem is, that zerg lacks cool abilities. Be it passive abilities like AoE, slow, cliffwalk, etc or active abilities like stim, blink or charge. It doesnt help either that zerg only has the infestor vs ghost/raven and sentry/HT. I mean the bread and butter units of zerg do fine if you simply compare the stats (aside from the marauder  ), but if you throw in blink,forcefield, stim micro the scale tips. Now roaches have this unique burrow move, but it is expensive, more or less easily counterable and it has poor synergy with hydras and lings. Burrowed roaches = no meat shield.
That would be my 2 cents on balance. (Sorry for possible derailing of the thread).
|
I can understand some points. Overall, I feel the direction of the OP is an early game. You talk a lot about terran being hard to scout and judge. This is really an early game thing. Sure a roach warren means roaches. but 15 minutes into the game, seeing a hydra den, a roach warren, a spire, infestor cavern, anything is possible. If 15 minutes into the game, and you see 6 barracks 1 factory and a port, I don't think you'll be getting surprised by any BCs. Of course that's an extreme example. I don't think we can act like walling-off as terran is something new. I also don't think you can compare every race as though it were apples to apples. Blizzard's made a game for 3 different races with 3 different styles. But on to more defined points:
The techlab animation has to be a bug, but maybe it isn't, I think blizzard's meticulousness should have caught that. Lets also not pretend like you can build from the barracks/factory/starport while the thing is building. Additionally, lets not act as though all of the terran buildings can win a game without tech labs. Protoss may have to tech harder with initial costs, but a barracks isn't really just 150minerals, it's 150+50/25. That adds up over time. Not to mention that Terran have THREE sets of upgrades, so while you may consider the cost of teching structures low, the cost to upgrade those units is not. Protoss has 1 set of upgrades for its entire ground army. Additionally as the game goes on when the protoss can switch with its warp to a new batch of units to hard counter something else.
The medivac as a dropship, well, we know medics have been around. If it wasn't the medivac, and back to the old academy, you'd 2 marauder 2 medic rushes that I'm sure would break the game. I suppose can say they heal a little too much, but not by that much. They only heal one unit at a time, can only be produced 1 at a time (without a reactor, which then restricts a unit producing building to 2 units) And every investment in a medivac means 1 less tank or potentially a thor. I can't agree with your comparison about the warp prism. I've RARELY seen a warp prism being used to warp. It's impractical to do actual drops as toss. r.i.p reaver (most fun drop in the game), but when you have a 12 warpgates and a mobile pylon with a 3 second warp in, I don't really feel bad that you're investing in a warp prism that while it may not "drop" units, it allows for more supply to be transferred to a point on the map, than terran.
The sensor tower issue is interesting, There are some real good spots to put them to get a lot of vision. Considering that creep, when used, is basically a maphack (ok, exaggeration), I don't really feel bad about a sensor tower that costs 100/100, isn't cloaked, and doesn't spawn more, while also revealing its location and the coverage, that big of a deal. Reducing it's range probably isn't a bad idea, I think most people would be ok with about a 25-33% reduction. Overall, I feel it's a pretty seldom used building. They can't fight back, so you CAN attack them, and if a terran really wants to place so many, they can't defend ALL of them.
Auto-Repair. Repair has been part of the game, auto-repair has indeed not. I once lost to a thor being autorepaired by EVERY scv (the epitome of all-in!) and was baffled by how strong it is. But as I said, if weäre discussing this in the vacuum of the high APM player, those scvs will be R+Clicked onto a thor, so I donät know, maybe I just haven't seen it abused enough.
I respect your comments Raelcun, mainly because you didn't complain about the marauder! No really, you know what you're talking about but I think that there's still a larger issue at work.
I think a lot of this really comes down to the fact that terran has far more openings that are a threat to the other 2 races, mentally you may always feel behind the 8ball vs a terran until after the first push, or the first 10 minutes of the game. Additionally, we can't forget that terran has an enormous investment in infrastructure if they want to be able to keep up with larvae spawn of multiple hatches/queens, or the quick warp of warpgates as the game goes on. While some might say terran is imbalanced, I say the other 2 races are underbalanced (really just zerg), and then its early on.
Additionally I feel that terran's gameplay hasn't changed all that much, while zerg and protoss have considerably changed, it's not really a surprise they were picked up faster. Protoss players are starting to get comfortable with playstyles so I think terran/protoss are closer than they are far. It's zerg that I think is lagging behind the most in certain areas.
But hey, with the new patch coming out we'll have to see how it goes. With seige mode going the way of the 250mm cannon, marauders will be used perhaps a little more often in favor the tanks.
|
On September 11 2010 02:45 Servius_Fulvius wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 01:06 TMTurtle 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. Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 01:02 eu.exodus wrote:
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 There is an excellent idea hidden here that I will start to exploit in my own play. "Standard" build orders, in an attempt to maximize efficiency, create only the buildings you need. Therefore, if a Z builds a spire the nature of efficient build orders will dictate that mutas are coming. I think Terrans are just more clever in their tech switches. Personally, I think I will start building things like a roach warren and only build lings, or put up a spire and go roach/ling with the opportunity to switch it up later. If terran can mess with my head why can't I do the same?
You can but it'll cost you ressources. Same for P. It doesn't for terran.
I've seen builds which incorporate a Roach Warren and Glial Reconstitution as a "just in case" tech for defence, aiming at building roaches only in the late-lategame. But these builds tend to become too inneficient as time goes by (similar to how you absolutely NEED an Observer as that Robo Bay finishes when going for colossi)
|
I totally agree with the auto repair thing. It's so annoying to try and target those small SCV's when they are repairing something huge like a Battlecruiser or Thor.
I also agree with the tech lab. The tech lab automatically opens almost all of the barracks tech units. If they have tech lab yes but also I don't know bring back the academy, other races won't have such a problem wondering what units the Terran player is going.
But if there had to be one change, definitely change the auto repair, its stupid, its not WarCraft, StarCraft we have to do everything by hand/hotkey, no easy way out please.
|
Okay but repairing also cost resources. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere yet.
Shield regen does not cost a protoss player resources and neither does auto heal for the zerg. That sounds balanced to me
|
I think that # Issue 3 # is not fair for Terran players, Protoss and Zerg have a lot of ways to drop units without making drops... Think about that, you can make a pylon and use an observer to gain vision and warp units or you can use stalkers to blink into terran bases, and you have colosus. And Zergs have borrowed roaches and niddus for dropping, who are also efective ways of "dropping" units in enemys base.
Well, its true that terrans have drops "cheaper" than tos and zerg, but zergs ya another ways to do the same at a very low mineral cost.
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
On September 11 2010 03:42 Mayerling wrote:
Okay but repairing also cost resources. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere yet.
Shield regen does not cost a protoss player resources and neither does auto heal for the zerg. That sounds balanced to me
NO!
You know what, I rather have the repairing scv give Terran player minerals for each hit-point repaired but having higher priority, the way it is now is absurd...
|
On September 11 2010 03:42 Mayerling wrote:
Okay but repairing also cost resources. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere yet.
Shield regen does not cost a protoss player resources and neither does auto heal for the zerg. That sounds balanced to me
Shields and HP also don't regenerate at something like 150hp per second...
|
until i read this, i thought the sensor tower was a terran made xel naga tower
.....
|
For the people saying Zerg is "dominating" in Korea, here are the most recent Korean tournaments:
Star2gether Invitational:
1. Maka (T)
2. Rainbow (T)
3. Inca (P)
WTA #1
1. TheStC (T)
2. Cool (Z)
3. Hannibal (T)
WTA #2
1. TheStC (T)
2. Ensnare (T)
3. Mio (T)
WTA #3
1. TheStC (T)
2. Zenio (Z)
3. Z
Star2gether Siege
1. Tester (P)
2. Ensnare (T)
3. Maka (T)
Zerg WAS dominating in Korea during the early stages of the beta, now they're getting smashed there, just like everywhere else.
If you check the Team Liquid tournament database no Zerg has won a tournament since release except Dimaga, who has won 3 online open cups (and he played Terran in the final of one of them). By comparison there have been 12 different Terran tournament winners since release.
Zerg has become almost a non-entity in competitive play.
|
On September 11 2010 03:51 arsenic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 03:42 Mayerling wrote:
Okay but repairing also cost resources. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere yet.
Shield regen does not cost a protoss player resources and neither does auto heal for the zerg. That sounds balanced to me Shields and HP also don't regenerate at something like 150hp per second...
This. Comparing shields and Zerg regen to repair is insane.
|
I have to say, you have articulated this point far better than I have been able to. My main issue isn't that Terran imbalanced, because they aren't, but more that the learning curve and skill requirement to play the race in general is extremely low.
As stated, the ability to simply swap tech paths in a matter of seconds makes the idea of making a plan and adapting it to the situation at hand absurdly easy, as well as the idea that if a non-meching Terran player feels like dropping at any given moment, he can. At no point does it have to be a part of his long-term plan. I think that the idea of making the drop mechanic of a Medivac a research is a very elegant solution.
Sensor towers are an interesting development, and I really never saw why Blizzard implemented them. I suppose the idea was to give the race with (arguably) the least mobility a heads-up to harassment, but I feel that that defeats the purpose of making Terran so immobile in the first place. I'm not sure I agree with the position of locating units only in the fog, and not on the minimap. It may solve the issue for lower level players, but it's really not that difficult to hotkey your production facilities and stare at the fog whilst you macro. The concept of a toggled ability may solve part of the issue. I feel that somehow making the area it reveals a targeted ability, perhaps a 90 or 180 degree view range, rather than the full circle of vision may make the tower more like a manageable building, supporting your idea of making some of these concepts require more APM to use properly.
As for the auto-repair, I feel as though at no point should one unit (or building) be able to kill a small army simply because it is being repaired. At the very least, I agree, you shouldn't have the option to make it automatic.
|
I definitely agree with the sensor tower part. They really make for boring games because they eliminate any sort of creativity with abusing Terran immobility. If Terran goes for an immobile mech army, they shouldn't be protected from the type of mobile attacks that counter that strategy.
|
This article covers many problems with Terran, that are not caused by a unit.
Brilliant write up.
I dont think comments on specific units would fit to this article. Also I like your solutions so far alot. Concerning the Techlab I dont see anyway to solve the problem without introducing an "Academy"-like building. Terran need commit somehow to a techroute.
Also I totally agree on the "techswitch"-thing. As a Zerg player I have the advantage to change my Units relativly quick (Spirebuilding time makes me...its just not quick build  ). But so does the Terran, if not quicker. We dont need so many producing facilities, thats okay, but thats not always an advantage. To many players ignore the downside of that. If you loose a Hatchery to one of those ridicolous Marauder drops in like 5 seconds you lost instantly 1/2 or 1/3 of your producing capability(midgame). Not to mention, that its by far harder to keep them at full efficiency.
|
Does no one else think that the reason Terran is so strong is just because of how strong and cost effective their units are?
People are saying that Zerg can drop just as easily as Terran can and in some ways, yes, that's true. However, have you ever seen Zerg drop a handful of units into someone's base and take down key tech structures and main buildings in seconds? Of course not because Zerg units can't do that. The same applies for Protoss (aside from DT which cost a ton to make). However, we all know that Terran can just drop a handful of Marauders or Hellions and totally destroy your tech or econ if you aren't paying attention for one second. If Zerg actually does drop enough to pull something off like that, they'd have to drop a lot of units which usually just means that if the opposing army just attacks the Zerg's natural and main and "base trade", the Terran or Protoss will win. However, when Terran does that, it usually doesn't even matter because their units are so strong and cost effective that if you counter attack them when they drop your main, you can still lose that fight. Even if you win, if you don't win by a wide margin, you'll still be down one base while their econ will still be fine and you'll just lose slowly.
So you can talk about all the little things all you want and say that it's not "imbalance" that's at the heart of the issue. But honestly, if Terran units were just simply nerfed then we wouldn't even care about all these little things (the game would just be closer to balanced). If Marauders didn't hard counter Roaches so bad then who cares if you made Roaches because you thought they were going Reapers? If Marauders couldn't kill buildings in seconds, then there'd be more time to respond to drops and Medivacs being such an easy option wouldn't be such an issue. Yes, the things that the OP talked about need some attention but that's really not the main problem with Terran. Everyone who's honest with themselves knows that. Their units are just too strong. Marines, Marauders, Reapers, Thors, Tanks, Medivac... they're all too strong (not in all situations, just too strong in the situation that they're used).
In the end, it's not about comparing races and comparing who can do what. It's about game design philosophy. When you play any game really, going on the offense has it's advantages and it's disadvantages. The same applies for being on defense. But for Terran, no matter what they do, they have the advantage. They have the strongest and most cost effective offense, the strongest and most cost effective defense, bases that defend themselves from counter attacks, and every option that they would ever need to counter everything that come across. Protoss and Zerg on the other hand, seem like much more well thought out races with the whole advantage/disadvantage philosophy in mind.
This is like playing a game when you're still young and make up rules. Everyone knows what I'm talking about. Playing against Terran is like playing against a kid who can make up the rules. Sometimes you can win by tricking them or something like that, but next time, they'll have something to counter it because they can just do anything they want in the game without any real consequences.
|
Medivac is a major major problem
In BW, to have 4-5 Dropships you had to invest a significant amount of minerals, we are talking 800-1000 minerals on a bunch of units which did NOTHING but transport, that was all they did.
In addition to that if you went with the usual 1-2 Dropships full of units you had to spend a few seats in that dropships for Medics at least 2 to make your drop more durable, so you had less firepower because of that.
And ofcourse you did not have Marauders, so sniping buildings was not really a option, drops were used mainly to kill workers.
Today all of that is gone out of the window, Medivacs are naturally a part of the MMM ball, healing, transport, stim pack, conc, tanklike life of Marauders all adds up in such a sinergy that the other 2 races cannot rival.
Zerg gains the first initiative of the match once and if they ever get Ultralisks which are very very strong, but they are so late in the game. In BW the TvZ match was very good back and forth, once T got Medics they had initiative, once Z got Lurkers they took it back, then T gets SV with Tanks and now they have it, then Dark Swarm and it swings again, that was exciting to play and watch.
Toss does better because of possibilities like Colossi or Templars, which is why PvT is a pretty balanced and fun match in SC2.
And thats what Z needs, they need a unit that requires 1 tech but in numbers can "counter" the MMM ball, that unit should have been Hydras but their slow speed off creep + Conc makes that confrontation a massacre waiting to happen.
Ideally a nice group of Hydras and Lings/Blings/Roaches should do better than MMM, forcing the Terran player to go back to his base and add 1 unit that would tip the battle in his favour but that never happens until Ultralisks and whats where issue is.
And it wouldnt be a issue if Mutalisks were as good as they were in BW, but again here they are so easily destroyed by Thors or mere Turrets that the MMM ball can continue their march towards that Hatchery while that 1 Thor decimates the Mutas
EDIT: I hate to bring Lurkers back into it because everyone and their mother has allready brought them up alot of times before, but a unit like that is desperatly needed. Banelings are not a upgrade to Lurkers in the grand scheme of things even if they are suppose to be "similar" they sadly are not.
That is where problem may be with Zerg, the unit that was suppose to pick up the responsibility of the Lurker is not doing a good job of that, if the Lurker was in, instead of Blings, Zerg would gain initiative, gain the ability to do cliff harrasment, and push the Terran player back to get Ravens and some tanks to deal with them, MMM would not be enough to last through out the entire game.
|
I think the biggest issue is that Terran just has so many options combined with the super easy mass tech lab / reactor swaps makes it very hard to prepare.
The whole point that 2 rax with 1 tech lab 1 reactor can quickly turn into a banshee/hellion timing attach then back to mass marine with tanks then to viking/marauder... Unless you have an observer or a changeling constantly keeping an eye on Terran's structures (something that a good T will never allow), you're pretty in the dark even with sacrificing an ovie or phoenix relatively frequently for intel.
|
As a Protoss player. You can easily abuse a Terran player using sensor towers.
Think about hallucination and how useful it would be in this case. In the late game if you have 6-7 sentries and created a somewhat medium sized hallucinated army. You could easily pull the Terran player out of position and hit him with your main army once he shifts over to defend your hallucinated attack.
Very underused in my opinion.
I do however agree with the tech lab related points mentioned.
|
I approve of this message. Especially the repairing SCVs getting a higher priority. Otherwise, I think the Maruaders attack should be +8 to armor instead of +10.
|
I agree with everything :D
Medivac ist just insane ... i always thaught that ... they get it for free ... iam scared if i play against T ... they can open with everything and have all options kinda ...
Also Medivac + Marauder drop @ expansion is way to strong i think ... Marauders will kill ur hatch before u get there ... even if u get there u still have disatvantage as Z if he drops behind the mineral line ... u wont reach his units due to bad pathing or way to small passage to units ...
|
Very underused in my opinion.
i tried that multiple times.
the terran normaly just scaned it, seen that is was just hallucinations, ignored it, then went in for the kill because my sentrys where out of energy and because i had so many sentrys, i had less HT's.
good on paper, hardly works ingame.
|
On September 11 2010 04:17 arsenic wrote:
Does no one else think that the reason Terran is so strong is just because of how strong and cost effective their units are?
actually....no
I'm a protoss-player and think each unit by itself is fine (with the exception of marauder-building-damage); it's the easy accessability to everything that creates the problem - there's basicly no useful upgrade that need NOT be researched in the tech-lab (healing, EMP...even no research needed; but in "itself" these things are fine)
|
All i can say is you did a great job over here. Medivacs paying for upgrades make the mechanics interesting. Even if its a cheaper upgrade it will require some micro to trade tech labs and do it happen and it will delay a bit the drops.
The priority on SCVs is also great.
I hope blizz pay attention to this topic.
|
4 marauders drop + stim can kill a nexus in about 15-20 seconds, it costs 600/200, there is almost nothing you can do against that, 1 cannon, 1 sunken isnt enough it will only take them +/- 7 more sec .. and if your units are not in the area, its useless to think about stopping this..there are no other drops that are that cost effective, related to the topic, since their drops and marauders are core units for terran
Btw i find that thread rlly pertinent
|
totally agree with this. I've always thought it was the terran mechanics that make them "overpowered". another thing is scan and mules. kill off all the terrans scvs and they just drop a bunch of mules and still have the same or even higher income than you.
In BW the addon for scan can be easily sniped, can't really do that with a 1500hp orbital command.
|
1. Do we really need another thread like this? We should just make a single SUPER "terran OP" thread and make it a bannable offense to talk about it anywhere but there.
2. No mention of PF? Fail.
|
On September 11 2010 05:23 On_Slaught wrote:
1. Do we really need another thread like this? We should just make a single SUPER "terran OP" thread and make it a bannable offense to talk about it anywhere but there.
2. No mention of PF? Fail.
I read this thread completely differently. I don't think he was saying Terran is overpowered or imbalanced, but rather it is simply too easy to effectively utilize everything. His suggestions are more about making the race harder to play, so that a professional gamer might still be able to play the same way, but it will be a lot harder to do so, and a tad more stressful.
|
I really like an idea that has been brought up before -- make the sensor towers sweep like a radar. Of course, this would be on the minimap for the opponent as well. This would at least let them close some distance before being spotted.
|
Terran is harder to scout ? Well let see, in tvz at the top level the terran cannot scout a zerg properly because the zerg always have map control using mutalisks. The zerg can see every move from the terran because of the overloads and the creeps spread everywhere. The overseer can be usefull too. Also, it's easy for the zerg to see the exact build and mix of units the terran has with the mutalisks and adapt to what his the best.. like if the terran has 3 racks with a reactor 1 with tech lab and 1 factory... zerg know its going to be marines + tanks... and gonna make banlings lings with infestor especialy if there are no medivac.And don't tell me, Terran could switch tech and go marauder + thors or anything crazy...this mix isn't good at all. In fact, there's isnt many good build against a zerg middle and late game except tanks + marine + medivacs. On the other side, the terran cannot scout any good zerg since he cannot go out of his base until he reach a good amounts of tanks to kills the banlings. Terran has scans yes, but scans have a cost too and it's hard to scans the hidden spire of a zerg... so in fact the terran will go turrets without knowing if mutal are coming or not.
I don't want to argue every others points in this thread or in any other threads about terran. All I can say is that there are so many gamers here that can't win like they want at this game so they cry about how the other races are easy to play, or imbalanced they are etc. I don't think anyone playing sc2 can say any race is overpowered right now or easier to play.. im pretty sure everyone complaining here arent in the top 200 diamond or anything and that you didnt played every race at high level. If someone in here can reach the top 1 of the server with random than maybe he has the right to talk about good balance change.
|
On September 11 2010 05:54 LokitAK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2010 05:23 On_Slaught wrote:
1. Do we really need another thread like this? We should just make a single SUPER "terran OP" thread and make it a bannable offense to talk about it anywhere but there.
2. No mention of PF? Fail. I read this thread completely differently. I don't think he was saying Terran is overpowered or imbalanced, but rather it is simply too easy to effectively utilize everything. His suggestions are more about making the race harder to play, so that a professional gamer might still be able to play the same way, but it will be a lot harder to do so, and a tad more stressful.
damn you genius^^
its not imbalanced or overpowered, its just too strong and easy to use.
no offense^^
|
My main concern is what you talked about in #1. Terran have a far too easy tech tree, they don't really make that much choice in it. Zerg has more optional buildings during its tech and getting to the max tier takes ages, Protoss has 3 different tech routes and each one take more time than Terran to reach BC.
For me this gives Terran far too much flexibility when it comes to what opener and 1base push they can do.
The main issue seems to be for both protoss and zerg the fact Terran has so many options and for me it comes from there. I would either like a cost or time increase of tech lab, some more expensive upgrades or maybe some additional techbuilding like a third adon for a specific type of unit.
I'm okay with medivacs, its strong and the main issue is not drops but marauder damage against buildings, against armored its fine but they should make something against buildings.
About sensor tower, just decrease the range a little.
Auto repair is fine, but I like the idea of making repairing scv high priority target. But n the other hand a good player should be able to kill them manually and Im not sure about the automatic targetting idea.
Btw, not all of these need to happen but I think a few small tweaks are necessary and see how it goes from there.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
this thread has clearly deteriorated into a huge clusterfuck, with 20% actually commenting on the op, 20% feeling the need to chime in with 198263123 other perceived imbalances despite the fact that they obviously know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about this game, 20% going off tangent on god richard dawkins knows what, 20% citing some statistics without having any remote knowledge on what statistics actually are, and 20% of I dunno. yes these numbers are 100% scientifically proven and this thread is now closed. move along
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
