|
On May 05 2012 16:25 MorroW wrote:
What about adding ravens to the mix in late game? HSM is pretty sick. Imagine emp cloud all over him and then a few HSMs to soften it up. It's not like your lacking gas at that point anyway.
Anyway just a thought might just throw it out there, too much negativity in this thread IMO xd
Maybe hellions in the back would be worth the money?
A ghost-marauder-viking army with a couple medivacs can beat everything. You can get an army value of over 10k if you make around 25-30 ghosts and sacrifice scvs when you get orbitals. You can also harass with nukes at the same time and emp every single protoss unit. Also if you get to snipe the observer (which happens in most battles) you have an army of invincible units shredding everything. There's no need to add raven, what is wrong about tvp right now is the amount of all in randomness from both sides, the super cheap chronoboostable protoss upgrades and at the lower levels the fact terran requires way more skill and mechanics to be played.
|
On May 05 2012 17:15 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 16:25 MorroW wrote:
What about adding ravens to the mix in late game? HSM is pretty sick. Imagine emp cloud all over him and then a few HSMs to soften it up. It's not like your lacking gas at that point anyway.
Anyway just a thought might just throw it out there, too much negativity in this thread IMO xd
Maybe hellions in the back would be worth the money?
A ghost-marauder-viking army with a couple medivacs can beat everything. You can get an army value of over 10k if you make around 25-30 ghosts and sacrifice scvs when you get orbitals. You can also harass with nukes at the same time and emp every single protoss unit. Also if you get to snipe the observer (which happens in most battles) you have an army of invincible units shredding everything. There's no need to add raven, what is wrong about tvp right now is the amount of all in randomness from both sides and the super cheap chronoboostable protoss upgrades.
nvm editted
|
On May 05 2012 16:08 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 14:19 Talack wrote:
....
So... nerf storm and templars : / It's honestly very fair imo. Sure, as long as Terran gets an early game nerf to accompany it. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
Honestly it wouldn't be a patch without nerfing terran in the early game 
And honestly, what is it that is so bad about terran early game? I'd really like to know. because so far protoss are not having trouble with the early game it seems.
Honestly, I'd really like to know (not condescending at all). We seem to be on pretty equal footing despite some of the strong-as hell terran all-ins. But that's beaten as long as you're not too greedy in my experiance.
Edit:
Should probably add in that yes I know that terran is a bit stronger in the early game, but it's dealable with by making correct decisions and scouting etc etc... Comparable to the late game, terran already knows what's comming but just can't keep up with it no matter what they do.
|
On May 05 2012 17:15 Cloud9157 wrote:
I'm seriously lol'ing at these whines about storm.
Just look at all the buff zergs and toss got from their whining, it is clearly the way to go! Even now, when terran pressure builds are figured out by the toss blizz is still going to buff obs and queens so that doing the damage becomes even harder...
Seriously, this it so broken.
Storm is op and needs to be nerfed, it is just stupid how simply toss can kill whole armies within a couple of seconds.
Terran T3 needs to be buffed, remove the stupid energy bars from thors and bcs!
|
On May 05 2012 17:15 Cloud9157 wrote:
I'm seriously lol'ing at these whines about storm.
You contributed nothing to the discussion but looking like an idiot. Bravo, you and your race are one step backwards now : /
|
Blizzard needs to buff bc's dps, range, decrease cost(population and mineral gas cost), increase speed or something like that. Blizzard thinks that bc's should have these flaws because it have yamato cannon, but srsly all it does is add's target over bc's head "fb me" . If blizzard buffed bc's it would be natural transition from viking's(since you already get attack upgrade for them).
|
On May 05 2012 16:25 MorroW wrote:
What about adding ravens to the mix in late game? HSM is pretty sick. Imagine emp cloud all over him and then a few HSMs to soften it up. It's not like your lacking gas at that point anyway.
Anyway just a thought might just throw it out there, too much negativity in this thread IMO xd
Maybe hellions in the back would be worth the money?
If you can make it work, we'll follow you to TvP heaven. Even if it doesn't work, would be nice to see some high level replays of these experiments.
Edit: wow, Cloud really does speak straight how it is ^^
|
On May 05 2012 17:33 Talack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 16:08 Piledriver wrote:On May 05 2012 14:19 Talack wrote:
....
So... nerf storm and templars : / It's honestly very fair imo. Sure, as long as Terran gets an early game nerf to accompany it. You cant have your cake and eat it too. Honestly it wouldn't be a patch without nerfing terran in the early game And honestly, what is it that is so bad about terran early game? I'd really like to know. because so far protoss are not having trouble with the early game it seems. Honestly, I'd really like to know (not condescending at all). We seem to be on pretty equal footing despite some of the strong-as hell terran all-ins. But that's beaten as long as you're not too greedy in my experiance. Edit: Should probably add in that yes I know that terran is a bit stronger in the early game, but it's dealable with by making correct decisions and scouting etc etc... Comparable to the late game, terran already knows what's comming but just can't keep up with it no matter what they do.
Terran early game can't be nerfed, protoss all ins are already way too effective. I think Terran has a small advantage mid-game until charge + storm are out, but I don't know how to nerf that. But that midgame advantage only lasts about 5 minutes, compared to how long the lategame can go.
|
On May 05 2012 16:11 Azarkon wrote:
People are seeing this the wrong way. All they're saying is that Terran has to get into the late game against Protoss with a macro advantage. You don't have to all-in the Protoss at 15 mins. You just have to do damage to him so that you don't go into the late game with equal macro.
This is no different from Zerg in their match-ups. ZvT and ZvP are two of the best match-ups in SC 2. Early game, mid game, late game - players are able to win with Zerg at every stage. The match-ups are dynamic and strategically varied. They reward great players and lead to great viewing experiences.
Yet, neither of these match-ups are symmetrically balanced. Zerg has to have a macro advantage - being up in bases, workers, and gas income - in order to beat Terran and Protoss mid and late-game. A Zerg on equal bases, workers, and gas income is at a massive disadvantage mid and late game.
Zerg is able to obtain this macro advantage because they are better mid game. They are able to create a huge drone count rapidly. They are able to take expansions with ease. They are able to prevent their opponents from being greedy with their ability to throw a huge amount of units at multiple locations. A Zerg on three bases by the 5:00 mark is standard. Protoss and Terran are not able to do this.
The entire match-up in ZvT and ZvP is Terran and Protoss trying to disrupt Zerg in order to prevent Zerg from going into mid and late game with a huge macro advantage, because they know that when Zerg has no macro advantage mid and late game, Zerg dies. Terran is the same vs. Protoss. You have a mid game advantage in macro, unit efficiency, and mobility that allows you to disrupt the Protoss and to stop them from going into late game with equal macro. Zerg has to do this against Terran and Protoss - what's wrong with requiring Terran to do it too?
THIS.
Current TvP relies upon an army of cheap, mobile units, rather than some sort of food-efficient death army, and the natural consequence of relying upon cheap, mobile units is that you use them to harass or to power. If you're playing bio with a hefty economic lead, I'm pretty sure you can bully the Protoss deathball around via nukes.
|
avilo has said it in this thread, but terran really doesn't have much of a midgame advantage anymore. I used to be able to win games at the low/mid masters with the 3 rax bio 2-medivac push, or at least do a ton of damage. Now protosses are used to it and I can barely get anything done. Then they just get up to 3bases and it becomes super hard to win from there.
|
On May 05 2012 17:48 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 16:11 Azarkon wrote:
People are seeing this the wrong way. All they're saying is that Terran has to get into the late game against Protoss with a macro advantage. You don't have to all-in the Protoss at 15 mins. You just have to do damage to him so that you don't go into the late game with equal macro.
This is no different from Zerg in their match-ups. ZvT and ZvP are two of the best match-ups in SC 2. Early game, mid game, late game - players are able to win with Zerg at every stage. The match-ups are dynamic and strategically varied. They reward great players and lead to great viewing experiences.
Yet, neither of these match-ups are symmetrically balanced. Zerg has to have a macro advantage - being up in bases, workers, and gas income - in order to beat Terran and Protoss mid and late-game. A Zerg on equal bases, workers, and gas income is at a massive disadvantage mid and late game.
Zerg is able to obtain this macro advantage because they are better mid game. They are able to create a huge drone count rapidly. They are able to take expansions with ease. They are able to prevent their opponents from being greedy with their ability to throw a huge amount of units at multiple locations. A Zerg on three bases by the 5:00 mark is standard. Protoss and Terran are not able to do this.
The entire match-up in ZvT and ZvP is Terran and Protoss trying to disrupt Zerg in order to prevent Zerg from going into mid and late game with a huge macro advantage, because they know that when Zerg has no macro advantage mid and late game, Zerg dies. Terran is the same vs. Protoss. You have a mid game advantage in macro, unit efficiency, and mobility that allows you to disrupt the Protoss and to stop them from going into late game with equal macro. Zerg has to do this against Terran and Protoss - what's wrong with requiring Terran to do it too? THIS. Current TvP relies upon an army of cheap, mobile units, rather than some sort of food-efficient death army, and the natural consequence of relying upon cheap, mobile units is that you use them to harass or to power. If you're playing bio with a hefty economic lead, I'm pretty sure you can bully the Protoss deathball around via nukes.
But protosses have figured out that terrans have to be aggressive in the midgame, so now they can defend it pretty well. Drops honestly don't do much with warp-ins and blink stalkers. Forcefields prevent basically any frontal attack, or at least delay it. From there the protoss just waits for colossus or more gateway units so he can destroy your push.
|
On May 05 2012 17:48 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 16:11 Azarkon wrote:
People are seeing this the wrong way. All they're saying is that Terran has to get into the late game against Protoss with a macro advantage. You don't have to all-in the Protoss at 15 mins. You just have to do damage to him so that you don't go into the late game with equal macro.
This is no different from Zerg in their match-ups. ZvT and ZvP are two of the best match-ups in SC 2. Early game, mid game, late game - players are able to win with Zerg at every stage. The match-ups are dynamic and strategically varied. They reward great players and lead to great viewing experiences.
Yet, neither of these match-ups are symmetrically balanced. Zerg has to have a macro advantage - being up in bases, workers, and gas income - in order to beat Terran and Protoss mid and late-game. A Zerg on equal bases, workers, and gas income is at a massive disadvantage mid and late game.
Zerg is able to obtain this macro advantage because they are better mid game. They are able to create a huge drone count rapidly. They are able to take expansions with ease. They are able to prevent their opponents from being greedy with their ability to throw a huge amount of units at multiple locations. A Zerg on three bases by the 5:00 mark is standard. Protoss and Terran are not able to do this.
The entire match-up in ZvT and ZvP is Terran and Protoss trying to disrupt Zerg in order to prevent Zerg from going into mid and late game with a huge macro advantage, because they know that when Zerg has no macro advantage mid and late game, Zerg dies. Terran is the same vs. Protoss. You have a mid game advantage in macro, unit efficiency, and mobility that allows you to disrupt the Protoss and to stop them from going into late game with equal macro. Zerg has to do this against Terran and Protoss - what's wrong with requiring Terran to do it too? THIS. If you're playing bio with a hefty economic lead, I'm pretty sure you can bully the Protoss deathball around via nukes.
That's a big IF.
Stating that you're "pretty sure" also leads anyone who reads your comment to believe you're only believing it would work and theory and haven't actually done it yourself.
I can do that too: Cannons.
|
On May 05 2012 17:44 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 17:33 Talack wrote:On May 05 2012 16:08 Piledriver wrote:On May 05 2012 14:19 Talack wrote:
....
So... nerf storm and templars : / It's honestly very fair imo. Sure, as long as Terran gets an early game nerf to accompany it. You cant have your cake and eat it too. Honestly it wouldn't be a patch without nerfing terran in the early game And honestly, what is it that is so bad about terran early game? I'd really like to know. because so far protoss are not having trouble with the early game it seems. Honestly, I'd really like to know (not condescending at all). We seem to be on pretty equal footing despite some of the strong-as hell terran all-ins. But that's beaten as long as you're not too greedy in my experiance. Edit: Should probably add in that yes I know that terran is a bit stronger in the early game, but it's dealable with by making correct decisions and scouting etc etc... Comparable to the late game, terran already knows what's comming but just can't keep up with it no matter what they do. Terran early game can't be nerfed, protoss all ins are already way too effective. I think Terran has a small advantage mid-game until charge + storm are out, but I don't know how to nerf that. But that midgame advantage only lasts about 5 minutes, compared to how long the lategame can go.
Yeah this is my experiance as well.
Toss early-game attacks can be extemely devestating. A 6-gate with 6-7 sentries spamming forcefields can easily kill off a 4-5 bunker defense with scv repair. A 3 collosus push if you don't have enough vikings kills you. Alot of the terran early-game/mid game if you want, aggression does not kill the protoss but does damage, taking out an entire army and maybe killing some tech or an expo. I don't really know quite what is expected out of nerfing the terran early game, quite honestly it doesn't seem that bad off to deal with. Strong yes, but very dealable with.
|
On May 05 2012 17:53 IMoperator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 17:48 Severedevil wrote:On May 05 2012 16:11 Azarkon wrote:
People are seeing this the wrong way. All they're saying is that Terran has to get into the late game against Protoss with a macro advantage. You don't have to all-in the Protoss at 15 mins. You just have to do damage to him so that you don't go into the late game with equal macro.
This is no different from Zerg in their match-ups. ZvT and ZvP are two of the best match-ups in SC 2. Early game, mid game, late game - players are able to win with Zerg at every stage. The match-ups are dynamic and strategically varied. They reward great players and lead to great viewing experiences.
Yet, neither of these match-ups are symmetrically balanced. Zerg has to have a macro advantage - being up in bases, workers, and gas income - in order to beat Terran and Protoss mid and late-game. A Zerg on equal bases, workers, and gas income is at a massive disadvantage mid and late game.
Zerg is able to obtain this macro advantage because they are better mid game. They are able to create a huge drone count rapidly. They are able to take expansions with ease. They are able to prevent their opponents from being greedy with their ability to throw a huge amount of units at multiple locations. A Zerg on three bases by the 5:00 mark is standard. Protoss and Terran are not able to do this.
The entire match-up in ZvT and ZvP is Terran and Protoss trying to disrupt Zerg in order to prevent Zerg from going into mid and late game with a huge macro advantage, because they know that when Zerg has no macro advantage mid and late game, Zerg dies. Terran is the same vs. Protoss. You have a mid game advantage in macro, unit efficiency, and mobility that allows you to disrupt the Protoss and to stop them from going into late game with equal macro. Zerg has to do this against Terran and Protoss - what's wrong with requiring Terran to do it too? THIS. Current TvP relies upon an army of cheap, mobile units, rather than some sort of food-efficient death army, and the natural consequence of relying upon cheap, mobile units is that you use them to harass or to power. If you're playing bio with a hefty economic lead, I'm pretty sure you can bully the Protoss deathball around via nukes. But protosses have figured out that terrans have to be aggressive in the midgame, so now they can defend it pretty well. Drops honestly don't do much with warp-ins and blink stalkers. Forcefields prevent basically any frontal attack, or at least delay it. From there the protoss just waits for colossus or more gateway units so he can destroy your push.
The way to be 'aggressive' against an opponent who is camping his base, if siege equipment is impractical, is to expand. A three-base opponent is fine; a four-base opponent must have a weak spot you can attack. That's how it was with PvT back in Broodwar.
|
On May 05 2012 17:58 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 17:53 IMoperator wrote:On May 05 2012 17:48 Severedevil wrote:On May 05 2012 16:11 Azarkon wrote:
People are seeing this the wrong way. All they're saying is that Terran has to get into the late game against Protoss with a macro advantage. You don't have to all-in the Protoss at 15 mins. You just have to do damage to him so that you don't go into the late game with equal macro.
This is no different from Zerg in their match-ups. ZvT and ZvP are two of the best match-ups in SC 2. Early game, mid game, late game - players are able to win with Zerg at every stage. The match-ups are dynamic and strategically varied. They reward great players and lead to great viewing experiences.
Yet, neither of these match-ups are symmetrically balanced. Zerg has to have a macro advantage - being up in bases, workers, and gas income - in order to beat Terran and Protoss mid and late-game. A Zerg on equal bases, workers, and gas income is at a massive disadvantage mid and late game.
Zerg is able to obtain this macro advantage because they are better mid game. They are able to create a huge drone count rapidly. They are able to take expansions with ease. They are able to prevent their opponents from being greedy with their ability to throw a huge amount of units at multiple locations. A Zerg on three bases by the 5:00 mark is standard. Protoss and Terran are not able to do this.
The entire match-up in ZvT and ZvP is Terran and Protoss trying to disrupt Zerg in order to prevent Zerg from going into mid and late game with a huge macro advantage, because they know that when Zerg has no macro advantage mid and late game, Zerg dies. Terran is the same vs. Protoss. You have a mid game advantage in macro, unit efficiency, and mobility that allows you to disrupt the Protoss and to stop them from going into late game with equal macro. Zerg has to do this against Terran and Protoss - what's wrong with requiring Terran to do it too? THIS. Current TvP relies upon an army of cheap, mobile units, rather than some sort of food-efficient death army, and the natural consequence of relying upon cheap, mobile units is that you use them to harass or to power. If you're playing bio with a hefty economic lead, I'm pretty sure you can bully the Protoss deathball around via nukes. But protosses have figured out that terrans have to be aggressive in the midgame, so now they can defend it pretty well. Drops honestly don't do much with warp-ins and blink stalkers. Forcefields prevent basically any frontal attack, or at least delay it. From there the protoss just waits for colossus or more gateway units so he can destroy your push. The way to be 'aggressive' against an opponent who is camping his base, if siege equipment is impractical, is to expand. A three-base opponent is fine; a four-base opponent must have a weak spot you can attack. That's how it was with PvT back in Broodwar.
A problem that terrans have is that we don't have any effective siege methods to use vs. protoss armies. Against Zerg and Terran siege tanks force opponents into their base, and to break out you need to commit a shitload of resources. Protoss can "siege" as well, with forcefields. What's stopping a protoss from charging down a ramp when you have bio? Like I said, they'll just wait til they either have colossi, storm, or enough gateway units that they can decimate your contain. Then they set up their third base and it's on to the lategame.
|
On May 05 2012 17:58 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 17:53 IMoperator wrote:On May 05 2012 17:48 Severedevil wrote:On May 05 2012 16:11 Azarkon wrote:
People are seeing this the wrong way. All they're saying is that Terran has to get into the late game against Protoss with a macro advantage. You don't have to all-in the Protoss at 15 mins. You just have to do damage to him so that you don't go into the late game with equal macro.
This is no different from Zerg in their match-ups. ZvT and ZvP are two of the best match-ups in SC 2. Early game, mid game, late game - players are able to win with Zerg at every stage. The match-ups are dynamic and strategically varied. They reward great players and lead to great viewing experiences.
Yet, neither of these match-ups are symmetrically balanced. Zerg has to have a macro advantage - being up in bases, workers, and gas income - in order to beat Terran and Protoss mid and late-game. A Zerg on equal bases, workers, and gas income is at a massive disadvantage mid and late game.
Zerg is able to obtain this macro advantage because they are better mid game. They are able to create a huge drone count rapidly. They are able to take expansions with ease. They are able to prevent their opponents from being greedy with their ability to throw a huge amount of units at multiple locations. A Zerg on three bases by the 5:00 mark is standard. Protoss and Terran are not able to do this.
The entire match-up in ZvT and ZvP is Terran and Protoss trying to disrupt Zerg in order to prevent Zerg from going into mid and late game with a huge macro advantage, because they know that when Zerg has no macro advantage mid and late game, Zerg dies. Terran is the same vs. Protoss. You have a mid game advantage in macro, unit efficiency, and mobility that allows you to disrupt the Protoss and to stop them from going into late game with equal macro. Zerg has to do this against Terran and Protoss - what's wrong with requiring Terran to do it too? THIS. Current TvP relies upon an army of cheap, mobile units, rather than some sort of food-efficient death army, and the natural consequence of relying upon cheap, mobile units is that you use them to harass or to power. If you're playing bio with a hefty economic lead, I'm pretty sure you can bully the Protoss deathball around via nukes. But protosses have figured out that terrans have to be aggressive in the midgame, so now they can defend it pretty well. Drops honestly don't do much with warp-ins and blink stalkers. Forcefields prevent basically any frontal attack, or at least delay it. From there the protoss just waits for colossus or more gateway units so he can destroy your push. The way to be 'aggressive' against an opponent who is camping his base, if siege equipment is impractical, is to expand. A three-base opponent is fine; a four-base opponent must have a weak spot you can attack. That's how it was with PvT back in Broodwar.
Which is exactly what I mentioned earlier:
Expanding to a 4th doesn't give you an advantage later because the protoss army + method of reinforcement is THAT much better that it easily overcomes a 1 base deficit.
The FBR change might actually be good to break this up because it means the protoss must have at least 3 bases to get up tech and fails to reach full potential until on 4 bases.
|
The main issue I would consider about the TvP matchup is the radical power of late-game protoss AoE units such as Collosi. The Collosi is a good unit on paper, quite balanced but in the metagame it nullifies every attack a terran could make to punish the Protoss and force him to defend. This scenario appears too much:
1) Terran is massing up bio force and upgrades on 2 bases in the 10 first minutes of the game.
2) He pushes up the Protoss base and he seems that he will win quite one-sidedely.
3) Suddenly a collosus come out and begins to deal damage.
4) The terran MUST get back to his base and mass up vikings QUICKLY.
The fact is you can't have proportion of vikings for each collosi there is in P's army, because to shutdown those units you needs a handfull of vikings, no matter how many Collosi there is.
For me the main issue in late game is the range of the Collosi and storm: Where terran has a line of marines, then marauders, the Protoss can have up to 5 layers of dealing damage unit, making a concave scenario Protoss favored : Zealots, then archons, stalkers, HT, collosi. That's the main reason most of bioball melt, it's because the overlap of range protoss army have is way too strong. For example a good balance could be to put in the game the marine range upgrade and to half extended thermolance bonus, and reduce its price. It would allow Terran to have an more efficient stutter step against zealot heavy composition, and force the protoss to reconsider engaging an army instead of blindlessly be in position of dominance.
|
This isn't any different in games vZ. If you let them sit back for 10-15 minutes and just macro you're gonna be dead.
One of the problems of TvP I feel is that Colossi and HT are very strong, but without them the Terran MMM army just roflstomps over gateway units so hard it's not even funny. So you get really one-sided battles often.
|
Can the auto-turret be used in any way in tvp?
|
On May 05 2012 18:13 Dreamslayer wrote:
1) Terran is massing up bio force and upgrades on 2 bases in the 10 first minutes of the game.
2) He pushes up the Protoss base and he seems that he will win quite one-sidedely.
There's your problem. You're trying to break a two-base Protoss instead of expand.
3) Suddenly a collosus come out and begins to deal damage.
4) The terran MUST get back to his base and mass up vikings QUICKLY.
You do not need Vikings to combat a Protoss army with a small number of Colossi, unless you're fighting at choke points. Marauders are very effective against Colossi in open terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
