|
On May 22 2012 06:44 WaKai wrote:
Blink stalker all in beats any expo terran, it's almost auto win on some maps. The 4 gate warp prism was another 4 gate varient that worked well. T 1-1-1 is good, but can be easily stoped with the right unit composition, like t has to do late.
Man Protoss is soooo OP in the early game...
On May 22 2012 07:28 WaKai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 07:17 Toadvine wrote:On May 22 2012 06:44 WaKai wrote:On May 22 2012 06:31 Toadvine wrote:On May 22 2012 03:11 s3rp wrote:On May 22 2012 02:46 Toadvine wrote:On May 22 2012 02:07 s3rp wrote:On May 22 2012 01:54 TrickyGilligan wrote:On May 22 2012 00:13 Endrew wrote:On May 21 2012 23:19 Piledriver wrote:
I'm sure toss will be happy to accept a late game AOE nerf, if its accompanied by an early game Terran nerf. Please enlighten me how is Terran stronger in early game these days? Tosses got all the timings figured out, unless they do some huge fuckup you won't be able to damage/kill them with any build T has... I'm glad you asked! Here's how I know Terran early game is fine: If terran were underpowered in both early and late game, we would be seeing results of that in statistics. Guess what, we don't. At all. Both tournament statistics and ladder statistics are close enough to 50/50 to be within the margin of error. So if Protoss lategame is super OP as many are claiming in this thread, in order for the statistics to be 50/50 that means that for every game that Protoss gets an unstoppable deathball of doom, there has to be a game where they don't get that far and instead die. If you want to claim Protoss lategame as OP, you have to also acknowledge that Terran early game is equally OP, or you have to admit that you don't really understand how statistics work. Terran early game is before Stim and Medivacs and at that point you can't really do much with your units unless your opponent techs too fast or expands way to greedy. Terran is st in the midgame once Stim and/or Medivacs are out before that Gateway Units dominate Bio on even supply. At Terran can cheese quite effectively. When was the last time you've seen proxy gates or even a 1 base all-in win a PvT?On May 22 2012 02:30 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:On May 22 2012 02:08 morevox wrote:
The problem isn't Protoss, it's that Terran needs lategame DPS. Something to even up the matchup. Do you even play SC2? Terran bio balls have BY FAR the highest DPS in the game. Protoss lategame is a problem because of all the AOE eg Templars, archons and collys in combination with the ability to instantly warp in 20+ zealots in the middle of a battle. But it's not a problem in PvZ, because Zerg actually use units that don't die to half a storm like Marines do. It's arguably a problem in PvP, but that's more Protoss lacking anti-air which isn't shit. You don't see Storm in PvP at all, because, again, it's not that good against units with a lot of hp. When was the last time this was even tried ? There's in influx in cheese and 1-Base pushes from Terran in TvP because people look to avoid late game any way possible. Proxy Gates and 1 Base pushes would work very well if the Terran Metagame was super greedy . But it isn't its finding a way to react to the greedy Protoss openings and not having to deal with lategame protoss. Define "super greedy". 1 rax CC does not lose to proxy gates. Maybe 14cc does, never occured to me to check. In any case, proxy gates are awful and basically impossible to transition out of, while the likes of 11/11 rax can kill a 1basing player just fine. As for Protoss 1 base pushes, they'd be used if they were any good against standard Terran play. Terrans would still do 1/1/1 back when TvP lategame consisted of the Terran blanket EMPing and stim a-moving over the Protoss army. Honestly, we both know Terran cheese and all-ins are better off 1 base, while Protoss has better 2 base all-ins. If you people were correct about the balance of power in this matchup, Protoss would have like a 60%+ winrate in high level games. No. Blink stalker all in beats any expo terran, it's almost auto win on some maps. The 4 gate warp prism was another 4 gate varient that worked well. T 1-1-1 is good, but can be easily stoped with the right unit composition, like t has to do late. It's a pity all those Korean Protosses don't have you to coach them, or they'd have a 100% win rate against Terrans, who stubbornly do these unsafe expo builds every game. Almost auto win, the terran player just has to micro really well in order to hold. Which players like mvp and mkp have, this is why they don't do it in pro games.
.. Except when the Terran player doesn't play badly, what?
On May 22 2012 06:06 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 04:32 freetgy wrote:
if a terran player all-in fails, he will usually still have traded well enough by terran design (all units are cost effective) and can catch up thanks to mules and strong defensive options.
. Then it's either not an all-in or it didn't fail.
What does terminology has to do with any of this? Terran still has the stronger early/mid game..
|
|
|
Most of the time what people call "all ins" actually isn't really an allin, it's just an aggressive strategy that if you don't do damage you are behind, but you can still recover. An allin is if you dont do TONS of damage or outright win, you will lose and can't come back.
Although Terran allins can be stronger then other races allins. A terran player who chooses to allin does not "usually" still have traded well enough to recover. If your allin fails, you lose most of the time, no matter what race you play.
|
On May 22 2012 04:32 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 04:20 Fencer710 wrote:On May 22 2012 03:22 Endrew wrote:On May 22 2012 01:54 TrickyGilligan wrote:
I'm glad you asked!
Here's how I know Terran early game is fine:
If terran were underpowered in both early and late game, we would be seeing results of that in statistics. Guess what, we don't. At all. Both tournament statistics and ladder statistics are close enough to 50/50 to be within the margin of error.
So if Protoss lategame is super OP as many are claiming in this thread, in order for the statistics to be 50/50 that means that for every game that Protoss gets an unstoppable deathball of doom, there has to be a game where they don't get that far and instead die.
If you want to claim Protoss lategame as OP, you have to also acknowledge that Terran early game is equally OP, or you have to admit that you don't really understand how statistics work. First of all, latest stats released by Blizz show 50(Korea)-54-56% winrate in the TvP MU in favour of Protoss, not 50/50 across all regions. What's more, do you know what's the average game length? For several events I checked on Liqupedia it was around 11-12 minutes. Is that a late game? No. So according to your logic it should favor Terran. How come it doesn't? There are a number of Protoss all-in's and Immortal busts that can end the game early, as well as failed Terran all-in's that can contribute to the low average minute count. yeah, but there is a reason, protoss don't do that. if a protoss all-in fails, he will lose 95% against a good player. if a terran player all-in fails, he will usually still have traded well enough by terran design (all units are cost effective) and can catch up thanks to mules and strong defensive options. Not protoss, not zerg has that luxury.
People need to stop having perception that mules is op and can pull Terran back if the all in fail.
A mule can mine 270 mineral per 90sec, an scv/probe mines 40-45 minerals per 60sec. So it takes 6 scv/probe mining in 60sec = 1 mule in 90 sec.
Let's say, in some extreme all in, Terran pulls 12 scvs, and takes 30 second to Protoss's base. By the time Terran reach Protoss's base, Protoss should already mine enough mineral to make up for the Terran's mules, every mineral Protoss probes mine after that are free minerals. The longer Protoss can hold Terran army, the more cripple Terran's economy is gonna be. Don't forget that Protoss always has higher harvester count around those so called all-in.
See, the map getting bigger really hits Terran's all-in hard. The reason some 1-1-1 all-in still work because although it's all-in, Terran has already have all the tech tree, so he doesn't really fall behind in tech. Just try Terran's marines scv only all in, if it fails, Terran is gonna be so far behind that it's not funny anymore.
|
I just hate the fact that they're openly okay with different races having an edge at different points of the game.
|
|
|
On May 22 2012 06:31 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 03:11 s3rp wrote:On May 22 2012 02:46 Toadvine wrote:On May 22 2012 02:07 s3rp wrote:On May 22 2012 01:54 TrickyGilligan wrote:On May 22 2012 00:13 Endrew wrote:On May 21 2012 23:19 Piledriver wrote:
I'm sure toss will be happy to accept a late game AOE nerf, if its accompanied by an early game Terran nerf. Please enlighten me how is Terran stronger in early game these days? Tosses got all the timings figured out, unless they do some huge fuckup you won't be able to damage/kill them with any build T has... I'm glad you asked! Here's how I know Terran early game is fine: If terran were underpowered in both early and late game, we would be seeing results of that in statistics. Guess what, we don't. At all. Both tournament statistics and ladder statistics are close enough to 50/50 to be within the margin of error. So if Protoss lategame is super OP as many are claiming in this thread, in order for the statistics to be 50/50 that means that for every game that Protoss gets an unstoppable deathball of doom, there has to be a game where they don't get that far and instead die. If you want to claim Protoss lategame as OP, you have to also acknowledge that Terran early game is equally OP, or you have to admit that you don't really understand how statistics work. Terran early game is before Stim and Medivacs and at that point you can't really do much with your units unless your opponent techs too fast or expands way to greedy. Terran is strong in the midgame once Stim and/or Medivacs are out before that Gateway Units dominate Bio on even supply. At Terran can cheese quite effectively. When was the last time you've seen proxy gates or even a 1 base all-in win a PvT?On May 22 2012 02:30 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:On May 22 2012 02:08 morevox wrote:
The problem isn't Protoss, it's that Terran needs lategame DPS. Something to even up the matchup. Do you even play SC2? Terran bio balls have BY FAR the highest DPS in the game. Protoss lategame is a problem because of all the AOE eg Templars, archons and collys in combination with the ability to instantly warp in 20+ zealots in the middle of a battle. But it's not a problem in PvZ, because Zerg actually use units that don't die to half a storm like Marines do. It's arguably a problem in PvP, but that's more Protoss lacking anti-air which isn't shit. You don't see Storm in PvP at all, because, again, it's not that good against units with a lot of hp. When was the last time this was even tried ? There's in influx in cheese and 1-Base pushes from Terran in TvP because people look to avoid late game any way possible. Proxy Gates and 1 Base pushes would work very well if the Terran Metagame was super greedy . But it isn't its finding a way to react to the greedy Protoss openings and not having to deal with lategame protoss. Define "super greedy". 1 rax CC does not lose to proxy gates. Maybe 14cc does, never occured to me to check. In any case, proxy gates are awful and basically impossible to transition out of, while the likes of 11/11 rax can kill a 1basing player just fine. As for Protoss 1 base pushes, they'd be used if they were any good against standard Terran play. Terrans would still do 1/1/1 back when TvP lategame consisted of the Terran blanket EMPing and stim a-moving over the Protoss army. Honestly, we both know Terran cheese and all-ins are better off 1 base, while Protoss has better 2 base all-ins. If you people were correct about the balance of power in this matchup, Protoss would have like a 60%+ winrate in high level games.
Proxy Gate are only good if the Terran doesn't wall or you build it inbase and the terran doesn't see it. Anything involving melee units gets shutdown by a wall.
Btw 1 Rax CC into 3 Rax or 4 Rax is not a greedy build just like 1 Gas into 3 Gates is not a greedy build and is relatively cheeseprove unless you fuck up. Delayed tech expansions should and are able to hold cheeses pretty handily. Only if you try to do too much at the same time you die.
|
On May 21 2012 16:54 roymarthyup wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 16:33 ceaRshaf wrote:On May 21 2012 16:11 Lore-Fighting wrote:
Why does nobody seem to accept that the whole "do nothing and mass up tier 1 and 2 units til my opponent has all his tech" should not win games!
If you are going to play low-tech, then you must do damage in the early to mid-game! The other races have accepted this.
Because terran players say that they are forced to stick to the 1,2 tier units the hole game. If this is true blizzard fucked up the design. But I am not completely sure this is the fact thought but more that tvp lategame needs to be reinvented. pretty much feedback needs to be removed or BC's and thors need a "no energy" option. feedback is a horrible design element and if removed mech would become viable in the matchup instantly
How about change feedback to 25 energy, and remove the damage component. It just removes all energy on the unit. The thing everyone seems to be overlooking about feedbck is that it is absoloutly required to deal with ghosts, medivacs, ravens, infestors, phoenix, pretty much anything which can use a caster ability. Remove feedback and you remove one of protosses only micro abilities that deal with the super powerful caster units.
On May 22 2012 09:30 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 08:42 canikizu wrote:On May 22 2012 04:32 freetgy wrote:On May 22 2012 04:20 Fencer710 wrote:On May 22 2012 03:22 Endrew wrote:On May 22 2012 01:54 TrickyGilligan wrote:
I'm glad you asked!
Here's how I know Terran early game is fine:
If terran were underpowered in both early and late game, we would be seeing results of that in statistics. Guess what, we don't. At all. Both tournament statistics and ladder statistics are close enough to 50/50 to be within the margin of error.
So if Protoss lategame is super OP as many are claiming in this thread, in order for the statistics to be 50/50 that means that for every game that Protoss gets an unstoppable deathball of doom, there has to be a game where they don't get that far and instead die.
If you want to claim Protoss lategame as OP, you have to also acknowledge that Terran early game is equally OP, or you have to admit that you don't really understand how statistics work. First of all, latest stats released by Blizz show 50(Korea)-54-56% winrate in the TvP MU in favour of Protoss, not 50/50 across all regions. What's more, do you know what's the average game length? For several events I checked on Liqupedia it was around 11-12 minutes. Is that a late game? No. So according to your logic it should favor Terran. How come it doesn't? There are a number of Protoss all-in's and Immortal busts that can end the game early, as well as failed Terran all-in's that can contribute to the low average minute count. yeah, but there is a reason, protoss don't do that. if a protoss all-in fails, he will lose 95% against a good player. if a terran player all-in fails, he will usually still have traded well enough by terran design (all units are cost effective) and can catch up thanks to mules and strong defensive options. Not protoss, not zerg has that luxury. People need to stop having perception that mules is op and can pull Terran back if the all in fail. A mule can mine 270 mineral per 90sec, an scv/probe mines 40-45 minerals per 60sec. So it takes 6 scv/probe mining in 60sec = 1 mule in 90 sec. Let's say, in some extreme all in, Terran pulls 12 scvs, and takes 30 second to Protoss's base. By the time Terran reach Protoss's base, Protoss should already mine enough mineral to make up for the Terran's mules, every mineral Protoss probes mine after that are free minerals. The longer Protoss can hold Terran army, the more cripple Terran's economy is gonna be. Don't forget that Protoss always has higher harvester count around those so called all-in. See, the map getting bigger really hits Terran's all-in hard. The reason some 1-1-1 all-in still work because although it's all-in, Terran has already have all the tech tree, so he doesn't really fall behind in tech. Just try Terran's marines scv only all in, if it fails, Terran is gonna be so far behind that it's not funny anymore. Why do people make it so complicated... 1 OC constantly muling gives the extra mining corresponding to 4 scvs. How can one relate to 6 scvs in 60 seconds per 90 seconds... Thus if Terran pulls an all in with all his SCVs, the OC gives Terran the mineral income corresponding to 4 scvs. Not 6. On the flip side, if Protoss uses chrono boost 4 times, Protoss will have at least 4 extra probes compared to Terran (who had to build the OC for 150 minerals during 35 seconds), mining the equivalent of the Muling until full saturation.
The mule is pretty BS in certain situations. I saw an odd game in the GSL where a zerg got mutas REALLY fast and the terran had built mostly hellions (going mech). The mutas killed all the scvs and the hellions killed all the drones, but then a thor came out and was standing with turrets, so the mutas couldn't do anymore damage, and they came home, killed off hellions and both players were stable. However the terran dropped 2 mules and could make non stop scv production and pretty much got right back into the game. The zerg however only had enough mins to make 2 drones, and then had to wait for them to mine enough for another drone etc making what was a VERY even game to a solid lead for terran.
|
|
|
On May 22 2012 10:19 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 10:05 Kharnage wrote:
The mule is pretty BS in certain situations. I saw an odd game in the GSL where a zerg got mutas REALLY fast and the terran had built mostly hellions (going mech). The mutas killed all the scvs and the hellions killed all the drones, but then a thor came out and was standing with turrets, so the mutas couldn't do anymore damage, and they came home, killed off hellions and both players were stable. However the terran dropped 2 mules and could make non stop scv production and pretty much got right back into the game. The zerg however only had enough mins to make 2 drones, and then had to wait for them to mine enough for another drone etc making what was a VERY even game to a solid lead for terran. No, your argument is BS. Different races have different mechanics helping them out in different situations. I can name tons of things that Protoss and Zerg has that Terran doesn't have which gives them the advantage in other situations.
I'm sorry, but energy for minerals in low econ games is BS. In any low econ game terran has a HUGE advantage. So, low econ games, chrono boost is a huge help in helping you spend money you don't have really quickly. Awesome!
|
|
|
On May 22 2012 10:19 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 10:05 Kharnage wrote:
The mule is pretty BS in certain situations. I saw an odd game in the GSL where a zerg got mutas REALLY fast and the terran had built mostly hellions (going mech). The mutas killed all the scvs and the hellions killed all the drones, but then a thor came out and was standing with turrets, so the mutas couldn't do anymore damage, and they came home, killed off hellions and both players were stable. However the terran dropped 2 mules and could make non stop scv production and pretty much got right back into the game. The zerg however only had enough mins to make 2 drones, and then had to wait for them to mine enough for another drone etc making what was a VERY even game to a solid lead for terran. No, your argument is BS. Different races have different mechanics helping them out in different situations. I can name tons of things that Protoss and Zerg has that Terran doesn't have which gives them the advantage in other situations. E.g. Terran and a Protoss army fighting and evenly destroying each other, whereupon Protoss warps in 20 Zealots and wins. etc etc...
Agreed. By the same token, if the Zerg had the money, even without larva inject and 3 larva per base, he could have made 6 drones at once. Terran might be able to get ahead a little quicker by having mules get minerals "for free", but a zerg can outproduce scvs + mules with enough money.
Each race has an advantages and disadvantages that the others don't have. That's the game. Mules are just as useful as larva inject and chrono boost. Less so perhaps given the versatility of larva inject and chrono boost.
|
On May 22 2012 10:23 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 10:21 Kharnage wrote:
I'm sorry, but energy for minerals in low econ games is BS. In any low econ game terran has a HUGE advantage. I'm sorry, but energy for faster upgrades in high econ games is BS. In any high econ game protoss has a HUGE advantage.
1 chrono equals 10 seconds faster on an upgrade. You can't double chrono so it's not like you can dump 150 energy onto an upgrade and suddenly gain huge upgrades, unlike say, dumping 3 mules. This is definitly an advantage, I agree, but comparing it to the sudden mineral increase that mules can provide is silly.
Simple questions, do you think any protoss would hesitate to swap chrono for mule?
If they did swap chrono boost for mules would you consider protoss to be buffed or nerfed?
|
|
|
On May 21 2012 20:35 MooseMasher wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 20:02 Alejandrisha wrote:On May 21 2012 20:00 Dzerzhinsky wrote:On May 21 2012 17:58 Lightspeaker wrote:On May 21 2012 10:35 ntssauce wrote:
4th GSL and other 3 wins were 1 - 1,5 years ago we are talking about NOW. Stop using that retardet argument.
Amusingly MVP by himself wins GSL more frequently than the entire Protoss race, as well as having twice as many championships as the entire Protoss race. If you take MVP as an individual (4 wins) he has also won more GSLs than Terran (2 wins, 3 if you include the Super Tournament), and one of those was against MVP. It's a bit of a joke amongst Terrans that Blizzard balance the game as if everyone was MVP. so how should it be balanced? this thread is ridiculous. no one has even identified an actual problem. it's just the same garbage: protoss is too strong late game, so nerf X because that will fix the problem. that's not how you solve a problem. identify the problem first and then figure out a way to solve it. not the other way around. and the game absolutely has to be balanced around the top level of players. if it's not done this way it ceases to be competitive What do you mean no one has identified an actual problem? Protoss late game IS too strong. (and not even to a reasonable extent, the comparison with bw does not hold) As for the suggested nerfs, I can see why you find them inadequate. I'm not sure how I would solve the situation if it was my job to balance. You must realize tho, the people you criticize are two steps ahead of you: -They have realized there's a problem. -They have started to think about a solution. One think I'd like to bring up to discussion that I've never heard anyone talk about is the warp gate upgrade and new maps. I've heard a lot of people applauding blizzard for buffing ol speed, since the old speed was designed for smaller maps (steppes of war and whatnot) and thus was not sufficient to provide the required scouting information on the new, way larger map pool. Am I the only one thinking that warp gates also need to be adjusted now that the difference between having them pop out at the gate, or wherever you please, is increasing with the maps? I think that the reason protoss players have been having a lot of more success defending attacks in the mid game is indirect consequences of maps growing and warpgates being untouched. On a large map, terran either cheeses in a non-reactionary manner (proxy rax etc), or plays strong macro. If you just add raxes and go for a timing, you will probably not hit the window. The protoss however, always maintains the option of reactionary allins, which forces the terran into playing less greedy than the map allows, and thus by mid-game, terrans strengths are negated by the mere presence of warp gates.
you are missing the point
no one has identified a problem
saying that "protoss is overpowered in the lategame" is not identifying a problem. what is making protoss late game overpowered? can't seem to find an actual consensus but instead taking stabs at it: remove warp-in! remove feedback! back these units better or these units worse. these are not solutions to a problem because after 100 pages of terran groupthink, believe it or not nothing has been solved, nor has anyone even tried to identify the actual problem through looking at games where "imbalance" decided anything
|
|
|
Shouldn't this thread now be moved/merged to the Official Balance Discussion thread?
It's degenerated, if this is possible, into meaningless speculation and wish-lists...
|
On May 22 2012 10:36 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 10:31 Kharnage wrote:
1 chrono equals 10 seconds faster on an upgrade. You can't double chrono so it's not like you can dump 150 energy onto an upgrade and suddenly gain huge upgrades, unlike say, dumping 3 mules. This is definitly an advantage, I agree, but comparing it to the sudden mineral increase that mules can provide is silly.
Simple questions, do you think any protoss would hesitate to swap chrono for mule?
If they did swap chrono boost for mules would you consider protoss to be buffed or nerfed? What part of different mechanics give the races advantages in different situations don't you understand? And why do you think that chrono boost must be comparable to mule? Can I ask you this: What if Terran traded the mule with the warp gate mechanic: what if terran could proxy a supply depot and warp in marines and marauders? Do you consider Terran buffed or nerfed? Your argument doesn't make sense, you can't arbitrarily pick out something unique to one race, switch with a mechanic of another and believe that it would be balanced.
Hence why my original statement was placed into the context of a low economy situation. In a 'standard' game the mule is fine.
In a low econ game the mule is super strong.
In a huge econ game warp-gate is very strong due to the fast reinforcements from a forward pylon.
How come statements like 'different mechanics give the races advantages in different situations' mean that warp gate mechanic is IMBA but mule in low econ is fine?
Chrono is comparable to mule because it is the only economy advantage that protoss can get.
I guess the comparable mechanic for terran to warp gate is addons and the ability to relocate buildings. + Show Spoiler +On a side tangent, do you think it would be worth while for terran to relocate their production facilities on large maps after taking their 4th so their reinforcements are not travelling across the entire map. Relocaitng some buildings when terran max out would be the perfect time since they aren't building units 'right now' 
On May 22 2012 10:45 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 20:35 MooseMasher wrote:On May 21 2012 20:02 Alejandrisha wrote:On May 21 2012 20:00 Dzerzhinsky wrote:On May 21 2012 17:58 Lightspeaker wrote:On May 21 2012 10:35 ntssauce wrote:
4th GSL and other 3 wins were 1 - 1,5 years ago we are talking about NOW. Stop using that retardet argument.
Amusingly MVP by himself wins GSL more frequently than the entire Protoss race, as well as having twice as many championships as the entire Protoss race. If you take MVP as an individual (4 wins) he has also won more GSLs than Terran (2 wins, 3 if you include the Super Tournament), and one of those was against MVP. It's a bit of a joke amongst Terrans that Blizzard balance the game as if everyone was MVP. so how should it be balanced? this thread is ridiculous. no one has even identified an actual problem. it's just the same garbage: protoss is too strong late game, so nerf X because that will fix the problem. that's not how you solve a problem. identify the problem first and then figure out a way to solve it. not the other way around. and the game absolutely has to be balanced around the top level of players. if it's not done this way it ceases to be competitive What do you mean no one has identified an actual problem? Protoss late game IS too strong. (and not even to a reasonable extent, the comparison with bw does not hold) As for the suggested nerfs, I can see why you find them inadequate. I'm not sure how I would solve the situation if it was my job to balance. You must realize tho, the people you criticize are two steps ahead of you: -They have realized there's a problem. -They have started to think about a solution. One think I'd like to bring up to discussion that I've never heard anyone talk about is the warp gate upgrade and new maps. I've heard a lot of people applauding blizzard for buffing ol speed, since the old speed was designed for smaller maps (steppes of war and whatnot) and thus was not sufficient to provide the required scouting information on the new, way larger map pool. Am I the only one thinking that warp gates also need to be adjusted now that the difference between having them pop out at the gate, or wherever you please, is increasing with the maps? I think that the reason protoss players have been having a lot of more success defending attacks in the mid game is indirect consequences of maps growing and warpgates being untouched. On a large map, terran either cheeses in a non-reactionary manner (proxy rax etc), or plays strong macro. If you just add raxes and go for a timing, you will probably not hit the window. The protoss however, always maintains the option of reactionary allins, which forces the terran into playing less greedy than the map allows, and thus by mid-game, terrans strengths are negated by the mere presence of warp gates. you are missing the point no one has identified a problem saying that "protoss is overpowered in the lategame" is not identifying a problem. what is making protoss late game overpowered? can't seem to find an actual consensus but instead taking stabs at it: remove warp-in! remove feedback! back these units better or these units worse. these are not solutions to a problem because after 100 pages of terran groupthink, believe it or not nothing has been solved, nor has anyone even tried to identify the actual problem through looking at games where "imbalance" decided anything
There sem to be 2 parts to 'Protoss IMBA!' which are:
1) warp gate allowing protoss to instantly dump a bank into units before the terrans round of production is done letting protoss do a lot of damage after every big battle, assuming both armies take equal damage.
2) terran tier 3 sucks vs protoss so terran don't feel like they can transition out of MMMGV into something stronger, which, as many protoss keep pointing out, is a tier 1/2 army composition that is very mineral heavy leaving terran with no real way to use the ever important gas resource.
|
On May 22 2012 10:21 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 10:19 monkybone wrote:On May 22 2012 10:05 Kharnage wrote:
The mule is pretty BS in certain situations. I saw an odd game in the GSL where a zerg got mutas REALLY fast and the terran had built mostly hellions (going mech). The mutas killed all the scvs and the hellions killed all the drones, but then a thor came out and was standing with turrets, so the mutas couldn't do anymore damage, and they came home, killed off hellions and both players were stable. However the terran dropped 2 mules and could make non stop scv production and pretty much got right back into the game. The zerg however only had enough mins to make 2 drones, and then had to wait for them to mine enough for another drone etc making what was a VERY even game to a solid lead for terran. No, your argument is BS. Different races have different mechanics helping them out in different situations. I can name tons of things that Protoss and Zerg has that Terran doesn't have which gives them the advantage in other situations. I'm sorry, but energy for minerals in low econ games is BS. In any low econ game terran has a HUGE advantage. So, low econ games, chrono boost is a huge help in helping you spend money you don't have really quickly. Awesome!
Do the math... the mule makes the terran EVEN with the other races in terms of eco considering...
-Terran has to lose mining time to make a building
-Spend money to get the orbital
Once terran actually starts to use the mule it's about even with the zerg and protoss that have been using their macro mechanics since the very beginning of the game...
|
Lawl, try to do damage in the early game? LAWL I'm protoss i am just going to FF my ramp derp derp derp.
Terran goes for drops, "Well i can just warp in units where the drop is, derp derp derp."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
