|
On May 05 2012 01:33 Ccx55 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 00:34 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 23:35 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 23:26 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 23:11 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 22:29 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 22:22 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 21:52 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 21:17 Ccx55 wrote:
Well, here we go again with another stupid opinion from Blizzard based off of nothing.
They're saying that they intentionally want the terran to concentrate on mid-game and protoss on late-game.
So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand? They can go f*ck themselves, then? Is that your opinion on the matter, Blizzard?
Sorry for my language, I'm just really frustrated about how Blizzard is steering this game. I say this as a Zerg player, too. And your opinion is based on something ? And what if terrans want to build broodlords, stupid Blizzard preventing them from that ? ??? Sorry, did you just get off elementary school? What you've just said is completely irrelevant. I said that Blizzard intentionally gave terran the late-game disadvantage. How the hell is that, in ANY way, me asking for Blizzard to give terran brood lords? Your logic is completely flawed. And my opinion is based on Blizzard's slow and incompetent problem-"solving". Nice of you in your righteous anger to miss the point. You said : "So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand?". This implies that you want nothing to constraint what the races can do and I took it to the absurd, but logical conclusion. The point is that there are things Blizzard decided that races should not be able to do, otherwise there is no point of having 3 races. The races should not just be different in the units they can build, but also how you are playing them in different phases of the game. They are also not saying that they gave terran lategame disadvantage. They said that if terrans do not play correctly in the midgame they will have disadvantage in the lategame. That is completely different from what you are attributing them. Mass expand is a strategy. Brood lord is a unit. Your logic is so obviously flawed, it's difficult to see if you're being sarcastic. Are you suggesting that the only way to make protoss diversified from terran is to weaken them from early-mid pushes? Maybe for Blizzard, considering they don't seem to have any logic on the team at all. Reduce the tank minimum range, remove the overkill of viking rockets, decrease the build time of reactors etc. would diversify and buff terran's late game. Decrease warp gate cooldown, give cannons 7 range, decrease the research time of charge, increase sentry energy regenration etc. would diversify and buff protoss' mid game. To make up for it, give the zerg bonuses like cheaper spine crawlers or faster roaches. See? There are countless ways of fixing the problem. Not only the ones I suggested. The worst possible thing in any strategy game is to limit the player's opportunities and strategies. Somewhat limited works, but not so drastically like TvP. The first Supreme Commander is a prime example of a proper strategy game with fairly diverse factions. So ? Not all strategies should be viable. 5 nexus before gate is not viable and I would say it is a good thing ? This of course has nothing to do with your rant against the Blizzard statement. They were talking balance, you are talking general game design. Are you saying they should completely rework WoL in a minor patch before HoTS ? Because all your proposed changes seem like an easy fix only in your head. Game design != balance Balance = game design Yes, I speak game design. I speak specifically about balance within game design. They are not separate, balance is only a sub-category. And I'm not talking about specific strategies, as you should be well aware of. I get the feeling you're starting to desperately scramble for counter-arguments, seeing as how there aren't many left. An "early game" strategy from protoss such as zealot rush or 4gate is definitely not viable vs a terran who wants to put pressure on. A "mid game" strategy such as 3 gate robo or zealot-archon will not work either vs a 3rax or 2rax pressure. The only hope you have is for the terran to make mistakes. A "late game" strategy such as 1-gate expand is much more viable, and the protoss cannot lose if the first attack is defended succesfully. See, don't see the strategies as individual "5 nexus FE", but rather as mid, early or late strategies. One race should not have the advantage over any other race in this sense. A race does not have to gain advantage in order to be diverse. Blizzard should understand this. I'm not calling this an easy fix. I'm saying it was stupid of Blizzard to construct the game like this in the first place without much thought process behind it. I know that balance is part of game design, but you are not talking balance. Balance (as used in this thread) is very specific issue of winrates. At the broadest it is an issue of winrates in different phases of the game. You are talking about diversity, this does not necessarily have anything to do with balancing the game and until you prove otherwise I see no reason to think it does. So my two questions remain. 1) How is what you talking about in any way related to the Blizzard statement ? In your last sentence you even directly say that you actually have nothing to say to the statement in the OP, you are just in general venting your frustration with SC2 design. 2) Why is this statement of yours "One race should not have the advantage over any other race in this sense." true ? Other than you saying so and how is it related to balance ? It might, but I doubt you have any compelling arguments on the latter and only vague instinctive ones on the former. You've gotten the idea of "balance" wrong. You say balance has only to do with winrates, which is completely false. Consider a scenario for once, where you pit 100 terrans vs 100 protoss. all protoss players opt for late-game play, and 50 terrans opt for 3rax or some other early pressure. If all the terrans with 3rax win, and all the others lose, the win rate will be exactly 50%. Does this mean the game is balanced? Absolutely not. It means protoss have no chance versus early pressure, and terrans have no chance versus late game protoss. See? Win rate percentage is only partly relevant to balance, it is not a representation of balance as a whole. Oh, and, don't put words into my mouth. I said Blizzard are stupid for constructing SC2 in such an imbalanced way in the first place, and that has everything to do with the first statement. I love how you ask me a question, then directly afterwards you state "this might be true, but I doubt you can explain it well"(paraphrased). So you agree that I might be correct, but you believe I cannot explain it well enough? Then why are you arguing about a topic we both agree on? And please don't tell me you believe certain races should have clear advantages over others. That's like giving Protoss an aimbot hack and terran a speed hack, in counter strike terms. If I want to play macro, I'm practically forced to either play defensive protoss or play a very agressive terran. If I want neither, I will be absolutely crushed by my opponent in most cases. How is this not unfair and limiting my playstyle?
The problem IMO is with the design of Protoss.
They made this ability called Warpgate which warps in units faster than gateways and from any power source at all, ever. There are no negative side effects.
To keep this from being OP, they nerfed all the gateway units and made this bandaid unit called the Colossus. It's boring, promotes a deathball style of play, and there is no way to decrease it's effectiveness against Bio without vikings without flash level splitting.
|
4713 Posts
You also need to remember that Naniwa was actually cutting corners to try to get into the late game faster and stronger, so he was particularly vulnerable to these early game attacks. Other more well rounded protosses take fewer risks or do more calculated risks, cut less corners etc, and this don't allow much of an opening for terran to exploit.
Edit: And I agree with the poster above me, however I want to add that what he said doesn't represent the entirety of the story.
|
lol blizzard basically stating "Kill them before late game"
Watch the 1-1-1 all in spree
|
On May 05 2012 01:16 nOondn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 01:00 casualman wrote:
I really don't see the problem with TvP lategame. It's not as if the balance is incredibly bad. Solid control with Bio will still overrun protoss deathballs, provided you maintain decent viking and ghost counts. It's just that the army requires a lot of babysitting. Yes,We win the battle but we can't do any damage to the protoss afterward ,Becuase of Their warp in mechanic + chono + Zealot / Ht .Then it'll keep repeat this situation until Terran lose the game.
You can if 10+ ghosts and at least 10-20 supply of Bio survives the battle. He takes another 45 seconds at least to rebuild his Colossus, and in the mean time he has only zealots and archons to defend. Ghosts shit on that.
Even if you don't win the battle decisively, you can still say 'I've traded cost-effectively, time to expo!' and expand while he can't because he needs to build more army units.
|
On May 05 2012 01:16 Dontkillme wrote:
Oh so Blizzard is saying that Terran should end the game at the mid game? So 1 base or 2 base all ins all game longs? WTF. If all Terrans continue to do this, toss will figure out a way to defend our advantageous 2 base or 1 base all ins.... really thoughtful Blizzard.
You didn't read what they said.
1. Some size of Colossus/gateway army trades evenly against lategame terran armies. Obviously one colossus and two stalkers will not rip apart a terran lategame army. Obviously a maxed colossus/gateway army has advantages (given a good engagement) - they also cost more to build. Logically, this means that some size of gateway/colossus army trades evenly with a lategame terran army.
2. Your job in the midgame is to make it so that they cannot sustain an army bigger than that in the lategame. Their job is to live long enough to make it to a Colossus/gateway army. Which job is more difficult changes as time progresses, and the current state is not the ultimate answer for the state of the matchup.
3. "Oh, so we have to allin?" is a strawman. That's not what anyone is saying. Though feel free to, if you want, a lot of Terran allins are very, very hard to hold - even at pro level. Stop saying you need to allin. It's ridiculous, and if you watch any pro games at all you'll find instances where a terran lets a protoss get 3 or 4 bases, but still wins the game.
4. "Terran needs to play better to come out on top" is a subjective statement. Up until very, very recently, very good Terrans could allin on 1-2 bases against protoss every match and maintain a very high winrate (some still do, just not every match). This created the perspective that certain protosses were "bad". Now, you see protosses which are "bad" beating top-level terrans. You make the logical conclusion - protoss is easier. However, your assumption here is that your initial assessment was a fair one. Some people are stronger macro players and some are better against allins - it doesn't take a genius to figue out that the allin defender will look better initially but that the macro player will look better once they are both able to hold the allins. You might not know which protosses are good and which are bad as much as you think you do.
Moreover, drops and harassment seem just as hard to execute to me (who is a low-level player who plays both terran and protoss) as they are to defend. I seem to be about the same amount behind on my macro when I micro appropriately. Maybe this is just me and I have a "gift" for dropping really well - but I doubt it. Play protoss if you think it's easy. It isn't.
5. This is very recent - someone will figure out more answers in time. Like I said, not all that long ago a well-executed 1-1-1 was near impossible to hold (and it's still hard), and numerous Terran players were able to use the threat of allin-ing to their advantage (even if they didn't actually do it). Terran has won several GSLs since the last time a protoss won the finals (MC back in march - more than a year ago). The current state is not a trend at the top level yet. It's very new and very well may not need fixing (except through trying new strats).
Stop making threads about this. There have been several and they all say the same thing.
|
On May 05 2012 01:44 OpTiKDream wrote:
lol blizzard basically stating "Kill them before late game"
Watch the 1-1-1 all in spree
Have you seen LastShadow's and SeleCT's late-game TvP play? It's great, and they don't need perfect stutter to beat the late-game deathball. Heck, LastShadow barely does drops at all that I could see.
|
4713 Posts
I'm not going to use LS or SeleCT for reference points on how to properly play TvP, with all do respect to the players and their accomplishments, if they where that good they would be in the GSL, as is they haven't even won any notable tournaments lately. The best reference point are players from the GSL and GSTL, and the international tournaments with lots of Koreans.
|
i have never seen such gross misinterpretation of an original text
blizzard has openly admitted that TvP forces Terran to push the midgame and by default be weaker in a straight up lategate
=
We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage. That said, we also know that terran players have a lot of offensive capability and harassment options at their fingertips in the mid-game. If terran players press that mid-game advantage, then protoss can’t necessarily get into the late game at their full potential
?????
they are taking a terrible direction with the race by being complacent with the situation
=
We are already keeping a close eye on things and observing all stages of the game. If we start seeing our global ladder results shift dramatically or TvP win/loss ratios start to heavily favor one side or the other in major tournaments, we will deal with the situation accordingly.
????
official stance on the fact that they are currently okay with Terrans being the early-mid game race rather than fix imbalances caused from different parts of the game.
=
In non-mirror matches we intentionally work to provide diverse strategies that make use of asymmetric design to produce varied, fun and interesting games. it’s important that those advantages can always be mitigated by good play.
????
is it really questionable that defending multi-prong harass with limited information (if you don't snipe obs, then you have no right to complain) is more difficult and less advantageous than having the ability to instigate it?
what is the purpose of this masturbatory thread, anyhow. no one is discussing the quote from blizzard, but rather putting it into their own words and complaining about how it's not good enough for THEM
|
On May 05 2012 01:45 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 01:16 Dontkillme wrote:
Oh so Blizzard is saying that Terran should end the game at the mid game? So 1 base or 2 base all ins all game longs? WTF. If all Terrans continue to do this, toss will figure out a way to defend our advantageous 2 base or 1 base all ins.... really thoughtful Blizzard. You didn't read what they said. 1. Some size of Colossus/gateway army trades evenly against lategame terran armies. Obviously one colossus and two stalkers will not rip apart a terran lategame army. Obviously a maxed colossus/gateway army has advantages (given a good engagement) - they also cost more to build. Logically, this means that some size of gateway/colossus army trades evenly with a lategame terran army. 2. Your job in the midgame is to make it so that they cannot sustain an army bigger than that in the lategame. Their job is to live long enough to make it to a Colossus/gateway army. Which job is more difficult changes as time progresses, and the current state is not the ultimate answer for the state of the matchup. 3. "Oh, so we have to allin?" is a strawman. That's not what anyone is saying. Though feel free to, if you want, a lot of Terran allins are very, very hard to hold - even at pro level. Stop saying you need to allin. It's ridiculous, and if you watch any pro games at all you'll find instances where a terran lets a protoss get 3 or 4 bases, but still wins the game. 4. "Terran needs to play better to come out on top" is a subjective statement. Up until very, very recently, very good Terrans could allin on 1-2 bases against protoss every match and maintain a very high winrate (some still do, just not every match). This created the perspective that certain protosses were "bad". Now, you see protosses which are "bad" beating top-level terrans. You make the logical conclusion - protoss is easier. However, your assumption here is that your initial assessment was a fair one. Some people are stronger macro players and some are better against allins - it doesn't take a genius to figue out that the allin defender will look better initially but that the macro player will look better once they are both able to hold the allins. You might not know which protosses are good and which are bad as much as you think you do. Moreover, drops and harassment seem just as hard to execute to me (who is a low-level player who plays both terran and protoss) as they are to defend. I seem to be about the same amount behind on my macro when I micro appropriately. Maybe this is just me and I have a "gift" for dropping really well - but I doubt it. Play protoss if you think it's easy. It isn't. 5. This is very recent - someone will figure out more answers in time. Like I said, not all that long ago a well-executed 1-1-1 was near impossible to hold (and it's still hard), and numerous Terran players were able to use the threat of allin-ing to their advantage (even if they didn't actually do it). Terran has won several GSLs since the last time a protoss won the finals (MC back in march - more than a year ago). The current state is not a trend at the top level yet. It's very new and very well may not need fixing (except through trying new strats). Stop making threads about this. There have been several and they all say the same thing.
For better or for worse, if Terran engages while in a good concave with adequate numbers of Vikings and 10+ Ghosts that don't die immediately, he's probably going to come out ahead in the engagement. I feel like most Terran players are not taking care of their ghosts and don't get nearly enough of them or vikings, as well as whiffing most of their EMP's.
In other words, Terrans are focusing too much on the MM in the late-game and not MGV (medivac ghost viking)
|
On May 05 2012 01:44 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 01:16 nOondn wrote:On May 05 2012 01:00 casualman wrote:
I really don't see the problem with TvP lategame. It's not as if the balance is incredibly bad. Solid control with Bio will still overrun protoss deathballs, provided you maintain decent viking and ghost counts. It's just that the army requires a lot of babysitting. Yes,We win the battle but we can't do any damage to the protoss afterward ,Becuase of Their warp in mechanic + chono + Zealot / Ht .Then it'll keep repeat this situation until Terran lose the game. You can if 10+ ghosts and at least 10-20 supply of Bio survives the battle. He takes another 45 seconds at least to rebuild his Colossus, and in the mean time he has only zealots and archons to defend. Ghosts shit on that. Even if you don't win the battle decisively, you can still say 'I've traded cost-effectively, time to expo!' and expand while he can't because he needs to build more army units.
And what if their expo Got Ht ? -_- then suddenly they warp in zealot and storm then you need to retreat anyway.
|
i seem to remember these units in broodwars that were ultimately ineffective in all matchups at all stages of the game.
you seem to forget that in a game refined as BW that it's still mainly a 2-base focused game in the TvP match-up
there is very few entertaining or consistent options other than to exploit timings available to both races, or to create your own based on your playstyle or strengths&weaknesses.
what i receive from this whine about terran losing late game "9/10" in most engagements is that you're unable to innovate.
there used to be a 3-hatch mutalisk build in ZvP that was seemingly unstoppable at the time, yet it became out of style and was a sort of build that people became especially confident against.
things change with time and practice. actual semi-serious balance talk on a forum isn't going to make you any better at the match-up in my eyes.
i would never solely or mainly rely on a patch or the innovations of another player to help my play or confidence against a certain race, at a certain point in the game.
|
Blizzard is basically telling the Terran players to go for 1-1-1s, 2 base timing pushes or bunker cheeses in every single TvP; all of which can and should be stopped by decent protoss players. I don't know what to say because that kind of a point of view makes no sense for me. Unless all races have equal chances in all stages of the game, the game won't be completely balanced, which Blizzard should focus on in the first place if they want SC2 to be an e-Sport.
|
On May 05 2012 01:42 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 01:33 Ccx55 wrote:On May 05 2012 00:34 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 23:35 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 23:26 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 23:11 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 22:29 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 22:22 Ccx55 wrote:On May 04 2012 21:52 mcc wrote:On May 04 2012 21:17 Ccx55 wrote:
Well, here we go again with another stupid opinion from Blizzard based off of nothing.
They're saying that they intentionally want the terran to concentrate on mid-game and protoss on late-game.
So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand? They can go f*ck themselves, then? Is that your opinion on the matter, Blizzard?
Sorry for my language, I'm just really frustrated about how Blizzard is steering this game. I say this as a Zerg player, too. And your opinion is based on something ? And what if terrans want to build broodlords, stupid Blizzard preventing them from that ? ??? Sorry, did you just get off elementary school? What you've just said is completely irrelevant. I said that Blizzard intentionally gave terran the late-game disadvantage. How the hell is that, in ANY way, me asking for Blizzard to give terran brood lords? Your logic is completely flawed. And my opinion is based on Blizzard's slow and incompetent problem-"solving". Nice of you in your righteous anger to miss the point. You said : "So what if the protoss wants to push mid-game? Or what if the terran wants to go mass expand?". This implies that you want nothing to constraint what the races can do and I took it to the absurd, but logical conclusion. The point is that there are things Blizzard decided that races should not be able to do, otherwise there is no point of having 3 races. The races should not just be different in the units they can build, but also how you are playing them in different phases of the game. They are also not saying that they gave terran lategame disadvantage. They said that if terrans do not play correctly in the midgame they will have disadvantage in the lategame. That is completely different from what you are attributing them. Mass expand is a strategy. Brood lord is a unit. Your logic is so obviously flawed, it's difficult to see if you're being sarcastic. Are you suggesting that the only way to make protoss diversified from terran is to weaken them from early-mid pushes? Maybe for Blizzard, considering they don't seem to have any logic on the team at all. Reduce the tank minimum range, remove the overkill of viking rockets, decrease the build time of reactors etc. would diversify and buff terran's late game. Decrease warp gate cooldown, give cannons 7 range, decrease the research time of charge, increase sentry energy regenration etc. would diversify and buff protoss' mid game. To make up for it, give the zerg bonuses like cheaper spine crawlers or faster roaches. See? There are countless ways of fixing the problem. Not only the ones I suggested. The worst possible thing in any strategy game is to limit the player's opportunities and strategies. Somewhat limited works, but not so drastically like TvP. The first Supreme Commander is a prime example of a proper strategy game with fairly diverse factions. So ? Not all strategies should be viable. 5 nexus before gate is not viable and I would say it is a good thing ? This of course has nothing to do with your rant against the Blizzard statement. They were talking balance, you are talking general game design. Are you saying they should completely rework WoL in a minor patch before HoTS ? Because all your proposed changes seem like an easy fix only in your head. Game design != balance Balance = game design Yes, I speak game design. I speak specifically about balance within game design. They are not separate, balance is only a sub-category. And I'm not talking about specific strategies, as you should be well aware of. I get the feeling you're starting to desperately scramble for counter-arguments, seeing as how there aren't many left. An "early game" strategy from protoss such as zealot rush or 4gate is definitely not viable vs a terran who wants to put pressure on. A "mid game" strategy such as 3 gate robo or zealot-archon will not work either vs a 3rax or 2rax pressure. The only hope you have is for the terran to make mistakes. A "late game" strategy such as 1-gate expand is much more viable, and the protoss cannot lose if the first attack is defended succesfully. See, don't see the strategies as individual "5 nexus FE", but rather as mid, early or late strategies. One race should not have the advantage over any other race in this sense. A race does not have to gain advantage in order to be diverse. Blizzard should understand this. I'm not calling this an easy fix. I'm saying it was stupid of Blizzard to construct the game like this in the first place without much thought process behind it. I know that balance is part of game design, but you are not talking balance. Balance (as used in this thread) is very specific issue of winrates. At the broadest it is an issue of winrates in different phases of the game. You are talking about diversity, this does not necessarily have anything to do with balancing the game and until you prove otherwise I see no reason to think it does. So my two questions remain. 1) How is what you talking about in any way related to the Blizzard statement ? In your last sentence you even directly say that you actually have nothing to say to the statement in the OP, you are just in general venting your frustration with SC2 design. 2) Why is this statement of yours "One race should not have the advantage over any other race in this sense." true ? Other than you saying so and how is it related to balance ? It might, but I doubt you have any compelling arguments on the latter and only vague instinctive ones on the former. You've gotten the idea of "balance" wrong. You say balance has only to do with winrates, which is completely false. Consider a scenario for once, where you pit 100 terrans vs 100 protoss. all protoss players opt for late-game play, and 50 terrans opt for 3rax or some other early pressure. If all the terrans with 3rax win, and all the others lose, the win rate will be exactly 50%. Does this mean the game is balanced? Absolutely not. It means protoss have no chance versus early pressure, and terrans have no chance versus late game protoss. See? Win rate percentage is only partly relevant to balance, it is not a representation of balance as a whole. Oh, and, don't put words into my mouth. I said Blizzard are stupid for constructing SC2 in such an imbalanced way in the first place, and that has everything to do with the first statement. I love how you ask me a question, then directly afterwards you state "this might be true, but I doubt you can explain it well"(paraphrased). So you agree that I might be correct, but you believe I cannot explain it well enough? Then why are you arguing about a topic we both agree on? And please don't tell me you believe certain races should have clear advantages over others. That's like giving Protoss an aimbot hack and terran a speed hack, in counter strike terms. If I want to play macro, I'm practically forced to either play defensive protoss or play a very agressive terran. If I want neither, I will be absolutely crushed by my opponent in most cases. How is this not unfair and limiting my playstyle? The problem IMO is with the design of Protoss. They made this ability called Warpgate which warps in units faster than gateways and from any power source at all, ever. There are no negative side effects. To keep this from being OP, they nerfed all the gateway units and made this bandaid unit called the Colossus. It's boring, promotes a deathball style of play, and there is no way to decrease it's effectiveness against Bio without vikings without flash level splitting.
It's a problem without a solution, indeed. I believe neither Terran nor Protoss is over or underpowered. But, rather, the way the game is set-up prevents a fair game between any non-mirror match. This is especially evident in TvP, considering the argument you've just presented.
One unit counters another, until eventually there are enough T3 colossi to nullify the T2 vikings. Since terran has few T3 options, this creates a big problem near end-game. Battlecruisers are viable, but are seen little due to Terran's lack of chrono boost. There is no simple way of solving this, which is why I criticise the way the game was constructed in the first place. It seems to have the standards of Brood War, which just isn't good enough for modern gamers.
|
It's ironic how Blizzard's approach seems a lot more reasonable than a lot of these in-the-know forum replies, given how much shit they take for being out of touch with balance.
On May 05 2012 01:56 Djagulingu wrote:
Unless all races have equal chances in all stages of the game
That is never going to happen unless there is only one race. And even with just one race in the game, there might be dominant strategies that force the game to play out one way or the other.
|
On May 05 2012 01:46 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 01:44 OpTiKDream wrote:
lol blizzard basically stating "Kill them before late game"
Watch the 1-1-1 all in spree Have you seen LastShadow's and SeleCT's late-game TvP play? It's great, and they don't need perfect stutter to beat the late-game deathball. Heck, LastShadow barely does drops at all that I could see.
LS doesn't play bio anymore though from what I've seen. He basically does a super 2 base 1-1-1 build (1rax2fact2port) and transitions into mech from there.
|
On May 04 2012 23:58 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 23:54 Quotidian wrote:
I think we just need to realize that - as far as tvp goes - Wings of Liberty is a sinking ship. There's really nothing that can be done about it. Blizzard needs to do massive changes the various parts of the tvp game to even it out.
My suggestions are remove the marauder, remove the medivac and find some way to make a straight up dropship more interesting. Switch out the colossus with a less a-move focused unit (revamp the Reaver, bascially) Add medics, buff tanks vs protoss shields. And since the marauder is gone, let the new mini-thor be ok vs Ultras. On top of that, add more new funky stuff like the Oracle or whatever... oh, and remove warpgates.. yeah, like that's going to happen -.- I've never heard anyone with a problem with the medivac. It's the best addition to the Starcraft universe, and enables/rewards multitasking.
It's a dropship that heals.. it doesn't inherently enable multitasking to a larger degree than other dropships (there was plenty of dropship micro in BW) but the fact that it's a dropship that heals means that it synergizes too well with bio units, and it's this synergy that is problematic in the tvp midgame. If we want tvp to be balanced in all parts of the match-up, we need to give as well as take. And the medivac was a dumb idea from the get-go, just like units that can jump/walk/blink up cliffs and instant reinforcement to any part of the map.
|
i've heard somewhere that a nerf to feedback damage to massive units should be applied, similar in thought to the snipe nerf (but hopefully not as awfully executed), so that thor/battlecruiser could do a bit better in the TvP lategame, the same way the snipe nerf was intended for zerg T3 to do better in ZvT
i'm sure the balance team will be keeping a close eye on the Parting vs MVP GSL match coming up to hopefully identify any issues at the highest level of play.
|
The problem is with Terran being designed to cripple the Protoss hard enough on the midgame so that they can have the upper hand later on in the lategame is that it will make the players want to 1 or 2 base all in every game. For a player that greatly prefers macro games compared to gimmicky all ins, I'd say that I definitely do not want that to happen.
On May 05 2012 01:55 nanaoei wrote:
what i receive from this whine about terran losing late game "9/10" in most engagements is that you're unable to innovate.
things change with time and practice. actual semi-serious balance talk on a forum isn't going to make you any better at the match-up in my eyes.
i would never solely or mainly rely on a patch or the innovations of another player to help my play or confidence against a certain race, at a certain point in the game.
I'll be saying this as a Terran, I have to agree with what you said. I don't think Brood War was ever "balanced". The players were just able to innovate and find other ways to deal with "imbalance". It is just a matter of time before one of us come up with something and then us Terrans will (hopefully) start to dominate again :D
|
On May 04 2012 22:41 DerFreemind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 22:08 Destructicon wrote:On May 04 2012 21:39 A-p-p-l-e-s wrote:
Protoss does require a lot of micro too. What a lot of people here are saying is that terran has to micro and protoss just A attacks but in reality both races need to micro to win. You have to storm, move collusus back zealots to the front etc. True, but only partially. Protoss does require micro, but the amount requires for the terran is greater. Lets take a typical engagement with the standard composition for both race. Zealots need to be in front, stalkers at the back, colossus at around the middle and HT scattered towards the mid flanks and back. For terran, marauders more towards the front with marines mixed in, vikings hovering overhead, near cliffs or chasms and poking at colossus, ghosts near the front ready to cloak and EMP. That is pre battle positional micro it should take some juggling of the control groups, both need to do this equally so no problem here, the real issue is in battle micro. Terran has to constantly stutter step back, if they don't stutter step the army gets destroyed by zealots, and they take the full force of colossus and storm damage. Zealots charge in then you forget about them, charge is auto-cast, once its done you don't need to insert additional micro for it to be successful. If you mess it up by having stalkers in front you can blink the stalkers back. Protoss FF, and forgets about them. After protoss FF he doesn't need to do anything else with them, they are fire and forget, the terran on the other hand has to use some of his micro, while kiting to save his units, or sacrifice them. Protoss uses Guardian shield. No additional input required, the spell is again fire and forget, it helps units around it and if you are chasing the opponents army your units will always be under it, not applicable for late game though. Protoss storms and morphs HT into an archon. Storm is again fire and forget in some cases a single one can change the tide of a battle. After a storm lands however the terran must use more of his APM to also split or dodge, while he was already stutter stepping, managing ghosts, vikings and trying to save units from FF. Terran EMPs. Not as big a problem as you might imagine, shields without upgrades actually don't give a lot of survivability, apart from the stalker and archon the other protoss units have a HP to Shield ratio of 2/3 to 1/3. So EMP has an effective limit, while storm deals damage directly to the HP and there is no limit to the terran eating storms one after another (don't stack on top of each other, but they do back to back). While terran is EMPing he is also stutter stepping, splitting and moving vikings. The crucial things EMP needs to hit are sentries and/or HT. Sentries should be in limited number in late game armies because FF at that point just messes zealots up more then it helps. So HT are the prio. From what I've seen if the toss splits his HT in 3-4 groups, comes in and storms after he engages, it becomes nearly impossible to prevent at least one storm from going off. Terran uses vikings to snipe colossus, protoss responds by moving colossus back and focus firing with stalkers. This considering what little else the protoss has to do since most of his units or spells are fire and forget, then this shouldn't be too hard to do. Don't forget during this time the terran is still kiting, stutter stepping, splitting, trying to EMP and also manage his vikings. Yes I agree protoss has things they need to do, but given how many fire and forget units/ abilities they have and given how APM intensive terran is during battles I hope you really don't believe they are equal. dont forget while that all is happening, you should macro! Yeah of course terran can queue up the units, but in reality 200vs.200 "dance" as a terran player you are on the "edge". One misclick or bad engagement and you are dead! So what happens, as you fight is starting, allyou focus is going into the fight. If you do it all right, after the battle you realise that there are no reinforcments, but 30 fresh warped in charge 3/3 zealots. So toss doesent have to macro as the fight is happening, the terran has to or he is dead.
Not only Protosses need to macro during fights (obviously, I don't see how that's even questionable), they actually need to macro away from the battle. Warpins mean you can't macro and control your army at the same time, because you can't queue up units, which means there's a much bigger chance of "one misclick or bad engagement and you're dead" due to macro for Protoss than there is for Terran.
|
On May 05 2012 01:44 Fencer710 wrote:
You can if 10+ ghosts and at least 10-20 supply of Bio survives the battle. He takes another 45 seconds at least to rebuild his Colossus, and in the mean time he has only zealots and archons to defend. Ghosts shit on that.
Even if you don't win the battle decisively, you can still say 'I've traded cost-effectively, time to expo!' and expand while he can't because he needs to build more army units.
But that never happens, even at pro level, because its not really possible. For ghosts to work, they need to kill templar. They can do this by getting in front and hitting some snipes or emp's before the conflict, but then they die cause they are in front. Or they could be in the army or the back, in which case the army gets stormed before the ghosts are in range. Furthermore, all tvp battles require kiting for terran to have any chance. Ghosts cannot stim and will be left behind and die.
I don't think I have EVER seen a battle take place in a game of any significance, where there were 10+ ghosts left over after battle pvt. For sure not since patch. Have you? Link if so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
