|
On May 04 2012 14:08 CHOMPMannER wrote:
what happens if u cant pressure a protoss because they just never leave their base!!
derp 200 max army derp 1 a FF 3 TTT GG
you out expand them and trade armies... if they never leave their base then u can take the map and keep trading until they mine out.
If you nerf lategame toss then u have to nerf early midgame terran which would effect other matchups dont forget...
I think they should just get rid of energy on thors and get rid of strike cannon ability completly.
|
lol blizzard a good game is assymetrical but balanced at all points. that game is called bw btw. here is my opinion though: i think its perfectly fine that a late game toss amry beats the bio army, however the addition of other units such as thors/ bc needs to be viable for t. In my dream world I see the need for toss to micro chargelots and a maximum damage output for feedback (seriously the spell is 50 mana). Also I think that bcs should be faster, less expenses, less hp units; thus they can be microed, and come on blizzard "speed" is part of what makes the game exciting. Would you rather watch a mech v. mech micro or stimed marine mirco v. lings. How someone considers this post ;-)
|
There should be a viable unit that helps with the late game composition of Protoss. What I don't like is they're only considering the balance of the current standard unit compositions in the matchup, and excluding the possible weaknesses of underused units that are supposed to fill these roles: like Ravens and Battlecruisers.
Blizzard's viewpoint on the matchup is Terran must utilize drops and harassment in the mid-game to survive into the late game, relying on being very ahead on army, upgrades, and superior positioning to close out the game. However, entering the late game on equal footing shouldn't be a cause for Terran to be disadvantaged. The solution to the lategame deathball of Colossus/Archon has always been "micro better", be ahead, have the proper upgrades and positioning. But there is never any new unit to transition into. Terran needs a more viable gas dump in the late game besides Ghosts and Vikings. Obviously the Raven comes to mind, but it has little to no use versus Colossus/Archon. Perhaps Battlecruisers? They are very susceptible to splash damage of Archons and Storm, maneuverability and map presence of Blink Stalkers, and Feedback can also help to nullify them as well. Terran needs a late game transition out of the standard MMM / Viking / Ghost. More experimentation is probably needed, but I think Blizzard might have to come up with a solution of their own.
I think PvZ has a similar problem. Protoss has extreme difficulty dealing with Broodlord/Corrupter/Infestor armies. The Mothership, which is a very un-Starcraft unit is virtually the only answer after a certain point. However, it has an extremely expensive and long build time, and you can only have 1. Despite the fact Protoss is on equal footing with the Zerg in terms of controlling the map and it's resources, Protoss doesn't have the ability to dump their resources into creating the "perfect composition," which Zerg can in ZvP. I've seen MC have an insane mix of Carriers, Mothership, Archons, High Templar, Colossus, the works. He would shove all those chips in the center never to see them again, despite constantly cutting off Zerg resources and bases with harass made possible by amazing multitask. Despite the fact he massed Carriers, and the unit that is supposed to stop the counter to Carriers, his late game army was massacred. I've seen MC and other Korean Protoss outplay Zergs, build every unit imaginable, and still lose because of the sheer critical mass achieved of Broodlords, Corrupters, and Infestors. (not to mention Spine Crawler pits of Hell).
Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Viking/Ghost is nowhere near a "perfect composition" for TvP lategame. It's an absolute massacre. Theoretically, even if Terran could reach a "perfect composition," what would it be? Obviously this "perfect composition" exists for Protoss in PvT. Colossus/Archons are the core units to be dealing with Terran's mix. In the late game, they're quite massable and take up lots of your army supply. Terran's best choice against this composition has been an army that is theoretically hard countered by it.
StarCraft 2 has been called by pro players a game that requires a better unit composition than it's predecessor. However, in the late game, both Protoss and Terran find matchups where this is extremely troublesome, if not impossible. When Terran's best choice is an army that is hard countered by the very army it seeks to destroy, or Protoss's best choice is a single unit at any given time that has a number of exploitable weaknesses and vulnerabilities, you sure got yourself a couple design flaws.
|
On May 04 2012 14:05 larse wrote:
Now I start to feel the statement is utterly stupid.
Every race should have equal power in the late-game. Why? Because Late-game is not a relative term in SC2. What Late-game means is a 200 vs 200 standoff or clash. If one race has a disadvantage in this max-out situation, it's simply unfair. Guess what people would do then? They will not let the game go into this 200 vs 200 situation. They will try to win the game before max-out. There is no other way out. I simply don't think this is a good design philosophy.
Again, they didn't say that. They say that since T is playing TvP with fragile, but mobile units they need to get a midgame advantage against the more immobile but much more sturdier P.
There is no ticking time bomb, there is a burden for the Terran to be the attacker and P to be the defender. If T is successfuly the attacker he will gain a lategame advantage(ie more resources, P is relatively crippled etc...) If P is successful defending and takes no losses he will have the lategame advantage.
Races are different and no, a race with 5 bases at 200\200 is not the same as a race at 200\200 on 2 bases. Basically T can't let the P macro up peacefully or T must take more of the map than the P.
As many have said its similar to BW TvP. T was the defender most of the game trying to Macro up a powerful army while P either had to cripple the T or take the map and throw bodies at the problem.
One thing I do think its causing this perceived "imbalance" is the newer maps where its retardedly easy to take and defend 3 bases which limits T harrass. This new maps are not really harass friendly tbqh.
|
On May 04 2012 14:02 AeroEffect wrote:
I think TvP is pretty balanced. If everyone stops trying to be so greedy and play the game how it should be played, then terran should have no problems preventing the protoss from teching and getting weird unit compositions to attack move and win with. I never have any problems tvp simply because I dont 1 rax expand, 15 cc, or do that lame 10 minute 2 base medivac timing anymore because they can picked apart pretty easily. all you need to do is just play the game as a terran knowing how to push your advanatages and play with them accordingly. Im not saying 3 rax every gmae but if you see a protoss 4 gating, why not build 3 rax instead of building a cc and complaining about toss being imba when they break your nat/ramp?
Lol, Thanks for your professional level insight. If you see a toss 4 gating, go 3 rax instead of building a cc. Incredible.
|
TvP may be balanced overall, but it certainly ain't fun to watch on either end.
|
With the really heavy gateway style that most P's do right now, it is rare for T to enter the late game with a tangible advantage.
P is ahead in econ, upgrades, and unit count, and only behind in tech when they go for that sort of style on large maps. T is typically only ahead in tech, having the advantages that medivacs give.
This is an extremely map dependent advantage - with advantageous air space, movement between bases for T, and medium sized travel distances, low XN tower vision.
|
On May 04 2012 13:55 laharl23 wrote:
My god they aren't saying that you have to end the game with a 1-2 base all in
Actually, they are saying that, especially to the pro Terran players. How did MVP beat Naniwa in the GSL? Yeah, that's right.
|
On May 04 2012 14:20 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 14:05 larse wrote:
Now I start to feel the statement is utterly stupid.
Every race should have equal power in the late-game. Why? Because Late-game is not a relative term in SC2. What Late-game means is a 200 vs 200 standoff or clash. If one race has a disadvantage in this max-out situation, it's simply unfair. Guess what people would do then? They will not let the game go into this 200 vs 200 situation. They will try to win the game before max-out. There is no other way out. I simply don't think this is a good design philosophy. Again, they didn't say that. They say that since T is playing TvP with fragile, but mobile units they need to get a midgame advantage against the more immobile but much more sturdier P. There is no ticking time bomb, there is a burden for the Terran to be the attacker and P to be the defender. If T is successfuly the attacker he will gain a lategame advantage(ie more resources, P is relatively crippled etc...) If P is successful defending and takes no losses he will have the lategame advantage. Races are different and no, a race with 5 bases at 200\200 is not the same as a race at 200\200 on 2 bases. Basically T can't let the P macro up peacefully or T must take more of the map than the P. As many have said its similar to BW TvP. T was the defender most of the game trying to Macro up a powerful army while P either had to cripple the T or take the map and throw bodies at the problem. One thing I do think its causing this perceived "imbalance" is the newer maps where its retardedly easy to take and defend 3 bases which limits T harrass. This new maps are not really harass friendly tbqh.
Taking the map is a fallacy. 5 bases is no different from 3 bases because of how saturation works in SC2. There is no advantage that T can get having 5 bases over a P with 3 running bases.
|
On May 04 2012 14:22 RaiKageRyu wrote:
TvP may be balanced overall, but it certainly ain't fun to watch on either end.
This is my issue with it. Hopefully HOTS will make Terran tier 2/3 units more common in TvP.
|
On May 04 2012 14:23 architecture wrote:
With the really heavy gateway style that most P's do right now, it is rare for T to enter the late game with a tangible advantage.
P is ahead in econ, upgrades, and unit count, and only behind in tech when they go for that sort of style on large maps. T is typically only ahead in tech, having the advantages that medivacs give.
This is an extremely map dependent advantage - with advantageous air space, movement between bases for T, and medium sized travel distances, low XN tower vision.
Yeah, I think maps have more to do with it than what people are giving the credit for.
|
On May 04 2012 14:20 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 14:05 larse wrote:
Now I start to feel the statement is utterly stupid.
Every race should have equal power in the late-game. Why? Because Late-game is not a relative term in SC2. What Late-game means is a 200 vs 200 standoff or clash. If one race has a disadvantage in this max-out situation, it's simply unfair. Guess what people would do then? They will not let the game go into this 200 vs 200 situation. They will try to win the game before max-out. There is no other way out. I simply don't think this is a good design philosophy. Again, they didn't say that. They say that since T is playing TvP with fragile, but mobile units they need to get a midgame advantage against the more immobile but much more sturdier P. There is no ticking time bomb, there is a burden for the Terran to be the attacker and P to be the defender. If T is successfuly the attacker he will gain a lategame advantage(ie more resources, P is relatively crippled etc...) If P is successful defending and takes no losses he will have the lategame advantage. Races are different and no, a race with 5 bases at 200\200 is not the same as a race at 200\200 on 2 bases. Basically T can't let the P macro up peacefully or T must take more of the map than the P. As many have said its similar to BW TvP. T was the defender most of the game trying to Macro up a powerful army while P either had to cripple the T or take the map and throw bodies at the problem. One thing I do think its causing this perceived "imbalance" is the newer maps where its retardedly easy to take and defend 3 bases which limits T harrass. This new maps are not really harass friendly tbqh.
I think the maps play a huge role too. But I also think P players have figured out how to defend well. It's very hard to harass effectively when the P army is already in a defensive position in their base. If the P wants to sit back and get to the late game they usually can and will.
|
On May 04 2012 14:25 architecture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 14:20 windsupernova wrote:On May 04 2012 14:05 larse wrote:
Now I start to feel the statement is utterly stupid.
Every race should have equal power in the late-game. Why? Because Late-game is not a relative term in SC2. What Late-game means is a 200 vs 200 standoff or clash. If one race has a disadvantage in this max-out situation, it's simply unfair. Guess what people would do then? They will not let the game go into this 200 vs 200 situation. They will try to win the game before max-out. There is no other way out. I simply don't think this is a good design philosophy. Again, they didn't say that. They say that since T is playing TvP with fragile, but mobile units they need to get a midgame advantage against the more immobile but much more sturdier P. There is no ticking time bomb, there is a burden for the Terran to be the attacker and P to be the defender. If T is successfuly the attacker he will gain a lategame advantage(ie more resources, P is relatively crippled etc...) If P is successful defending and takes no losses he will have the lategame advantage. Races are different and no, a race with 5 bases at 200\200 is not the same as a race at 200\200 on 2 bases. Basically T can't let the P macro up peacefully or T must take more of the map than the P. As many have said its similar to BW TvP. T was the defender most of the game trying to Macro up a powerful army while P either had to cripple the T or take the map and throw bodies at the problem. One thing I do think its causing this perceived "imbalance" is the newer maps where its retardedly easy to take and defend 3 bases which limits T harrass. This new maps are not really harass friendly tbqh. Taking the map is a fallacy. 5 bases is no different from 3 bases because of how saturation works in SC2. There is no advantage that T can get having 5 bases over a P with 3 running bases.
Pretty much what I was getting to in my wall of text. Terran don't have a meaningful late game gas dump. Making one that helps Terran deal with the Protoss core deathball mix of Colossus/Archon is a step in the right direction. I hope they realize this for HotS.
|
On May 04 2012 14:15 CakeSauc3 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 14:05 Gamegene wrote:On May 04 2012 14:02 AeroEffect wrote:
I think TvP is pretty balanced. If everyone stops trying to be so greedy and play the game how it should be played, then terran should have no problems preventing the protoss from teching and getting weird unit compositions to attack move and win with. I never have any problems tvp simply because I dont 1 rax expand, 15 cc, or do that lame 10 minute 2 base medivac timing anymore because they can picked apart pretty easily. all you need to do is just play the game as a terran knowing how to push your advanatages and play with them accordingly. Im not saying 3 rax every gmae but if you see a protoss 4 gating, why not build 3 rax instead of building a cc and complaining about toss being imba when they break your nat/ramp? We're not even talking about that. We are though. What he's saying is Terran shouldn't be opening up a TvP game with a build that's oriented towards late-game aggression; instead, Terran should open up with a pressure build. I study how MKP plays TvP, and that's how I try to play it, as well. As a result, my TvP is by far my best matchup. Opening with a 2 rax pressure or 3 rax heavy attack is so much better than going for early CC. Protoss tech needs to be delayed by force, or else they *will* destroy your pathetic bio army once their splash damage units are being produced. Just as in TvZ Terran must pressure Zerg to keep their economy down, in TvP Terran must pressure Protoss to keep their tech down. If you challenge Zerg to a No Rush 20 build, you generally lose; if you challenge Protoss to a No Rush 20 build, same dif.
MKP mostly goes 1 rax or cc first, heavy eco openings. Or sometimes throws in a 1 Base, 2 rax push, into medivac push.
2 rax or 3 rax is easily held off by Protoss not playing overly greedy, who scout well. Leaving the terran behind after it.
|
|
|
On May 04 2012 14:20 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 14:05 larse wrote:
Now I start to feel the statement is utterly stupid.
Every race should have equal power in the late-game. Why? Because Late-game is not a relative term in SC2. What Late-game means is a 200 vs 200 standoff or clash. If one race has a disadvantage in this max-out situation, it's simply unfair. Guess what people would do then? They will not let the game go into this 200 vs 200 situation. They will try to win the game before max-out. There is no other way out. I simply don't think this is a good design philosophy. Again, they didn't say that. They say that since T is playing TvP with fragile, but mobile units they need to get a midgame advantage against the more immobile but much more sturdier P. There is no ticking time bomb, there is a burden for the Terran to be the attacker and P to be the defender. If T is successfuly the attacker he will gain a lategame advantage(ie more resources, P is relatively crippled etc...) If P is successful defending and takes no losses he will have the lategame advantage. Races are different and no, a race with 5 bases at 200\200 is not the same as a race at 200\200 on 2 bases. Basically T can't let the P macro up peacefully or T must take more of the map than the P. As many have said its similar to BW TvP. T was the defender most of the game trying to Macro up a powerful army while P either had to cripple the T or take the map and throw bodies at the problem. One thing I do think its causing this perceived "imbalance" is the newer maps where its retardedly easy to take and defend 3 bases which limits T harrass. This new maps are not really harass friendly tbqh.
Although in BW lategame PvT, you had the option of using Carriers and Arbiters to deal with the Terran mech deathball. Terran had tactics designed to stop those units. It came down to who was better, because there were options available on both sides. Not just relying on doing x damage by a certain point, like in SC2 TvP.
SC2 has the potential of some sick late game macro matches. Hell, we've seen a good amount of them. But they were more common in Brood War because there were actually options for every race to play in the late game. Starcraft 2 doesn't have that as I have outlined in my previous replies, therefore, the quality of games is significantly less because it's much more rare to reach the late game where we saw amazing back and forth slugfests, like in Brood War. But it has good graphics, right guys?!
|
On May 04 2012 14:27 Jono7272 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 14:15 CakeSauc3 wrote:On May 04 2012 14:05 Gamegene wrote:On May 04 2012 14:02 AeroEffect wrote:
I think TvP is pretty balanced. If everyone stops trying to be so greedy and play the game how it should be played, then terran should have no problems preventing the protoss from teching and getting weird unit compositions to attack move and win with. I never have any problems tvp simply because I dont 1 rax expand, 15 cc, or do that lame 10 minute 2 base medivac timing anymore because they can picked apart pretty easily. all you need to do is just play the game as a terran knowing how to push your advanatages and play with them accordingly. Im not saying 3 rax every gmae but if you see a protoss 4 gating, why not build 3 rax instead of building a cc and complaining about toss being imba when they break your nat/ramp? We're not even talking about that. We are though. What he's saying is Terran shouldn't be opening up a TvP game with a build that's oriented towards late-game aggression; instead, Terran should open up with a pressure build. I study how MKP plays TvP, and that's how I try to play it, as well. As a result, my TvP is by far my best matchup. Opening with a 2 rax pressure or 3 rax heavy attack is so much better than going for early CC. Protoss tech needs to be delayed by force, or else they *will* destroy your pathetic bio army once their splash damage units are being produced. Just as in TvZ Terran must pressure Zerg to keep their economy down, in TvP Terran must pressure Protoss to keep their tech down. If you challenge Zerg to a No Rush 20 build, you generally lose; if you challenge Protoss to a No Rush 20 build, same dif. MKP mostly goes 1 rax or cc first, heavy eco openings. Or sometimes throws in a 1 Base, 2 rax push, into medivac push. 2 rax or 3 rax is easily held off by Protoss not playing overly greedy, who scout well. Leaving the terran behind after it.
He does often go CC first, but notice that even when he does, he almost always pushes out at a timing where his bio army gets medivacs/ups and the protoss is ALMOST about to pop out their first colo/storm.
I open 2 rax quite often, and I find that even when Protoss doesn't early expand, 2 rax gives you enough units to secure your own 2 base vs 1 base lead and also threaten them with drops. Immortal busts can be scary, but it can be held, and it's sure a lot easier than trying to beat a Protoss deathball in the late game, IMO.
|
On May 04 2012 14:25 architecture wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 14:20 windsupernova wrote:On May 04 2012 14:05 larse wrote:
Now I start to feel the statement is utterly stupid.
Every race should have equal power in the late-game. Why? Because Late-game is not a relative term in SC2. What Late-game means is a 200 vs 200 standoff or clash. If one race has a disadvantage in this max-out situation, it's simply unfair. Guess what people would do then? They will not let the game go into this 200 vs 200 situation. They will try to win the game before max-out. There is no other way out. I simply don't think this is a good design philosophy. Again, they didn't say that. They say that since T is playing TvP with fragile, but mobile units they need to get a midgame advantage against the more immobile but much more sturdier P. There is no ticking time bomb, there is a burden for the Terran to be the attacker and P to be the defender. If T is successfuly the attacker he will gain a lategame advantage(ie more resources, P is relatively crippled etc...) If P is successful defending and takes no losses he will have the lategame advantage. Races are different and no, a race with 5 bases at 200\200 is not the same as a race at 200\200 on 2 bases. Basically T can't let the P macro up peacefully or T must take more of the map than the P. As many have said its similar to BW TvP. T was the defender most of the game trying to Macro up a powerful army while P either had to cripple the T or take the map and throw bodies at the problem. One thing I do think its causing this perceived "imbalance" is the newer maps where its retardedly easy to take and defend 3 bases which limits T harrass. This new maps are not really harass friendly tbqh. Taking the map is a fallacy. 5 bases is no different from 3 bases because of how saturation works in SC2. There is no advantage that T can get having 5 bases over a P with 3 running bases.
Not only that, but the population value of units in SC2 is usually higher than in BW, so if you're on 5 bases that are kind of okay saturated, that's like 90 scvs. Your army will be incredibly weak. Also, with SC2 having smaller maps, and with zerg and protoss having superior army reproduction mechanics (they can both max out virtually instantly given that they have a large enough banks, while terran has to wait for multiple rounds of units), playing macro terran just doesn't work out.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Skip to 1:00. Issue number 2. Late Game Zealot
This has been an issue that they have known about for a LONG and it is clearly an issue that they just don't want to fix until HoTS comes out which just doesn't feel right to me.
|
Seems like one of the most boring MUs is going to stay boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
