|
On May 07 2012 11:55 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 11:53 zEnVy wrote:
Day9 very wise in pointing that if you have more bases than Protoss then you will have an advantage.
This is like the worst daily ever. It's true that if you go for a lot of MMM and not that much VG you need to be ahead in the base count to win. I don't like that style very much at all.
I like the agressive PF in the middle. He never put to many SCVs on it and used mules. It game him a fall back point to engage in, extra income and made it so he did not mine out at this other three bases faster. It also forced the protoss to be active because he couldn't max or upgrade safely.
Also, PFs make zealots and archons do dumb dumb stuff when they engage.
|
On May 07 2012 12:03 lawlohwhat wrote:
This daily is silly.
The reason Puma won that engagement in the middle was because protoss decided to engage with his zealots behind his entire army and went up against a planetary fortress. Even then it was an even trade. Not to mention the complete lack of storms and relatively low archon count.
Well the protoss could never afford either. Puma did not let the protoss max, he also made the protoss attack early by taking the aggressive expansion.
|
I feel like this discussion might be more useful if people took a look at the amount of life and DPS a 3/3/1 Protoss lategame army has (let's say 3 Colossi, 4 Archons, 3 HTs, 8 stalkers, and whatever is left in supply Zealots) versus.
The last time I did this, if you give both armies equal supply, after stim the Terran army had about 800 DPS and 6000 HP, while the Protoss Army had 700 DPS and 8500-9000 HP, without considering splash damage on either side. And the Protoss Army has more splash available than Terran. So for Terran to win you need- Cloaked ghosts that land money EMPs on power units and stay alive enough to hit the zealots (where as your chances are ruined if he lands one or two good storms, you've got to get great value out of most of your EMPs)
- Positioning that keeps their power units out of the fight (making Zealots walk up and down ramps or around gaps, letting the vikings get free shots at the colossi as they try to walk into range of the bio, etc.)
- A different army with higher DPS ... you'd need Reapers, mech units and/or HSM to get it; BCs and Banshees are no help
- A different army with more hitpoints
- Bunkers or PFs (I think this is an underexplored response to Turtle Toss ... Turtle harder and try splitting the map in your favor putting tons of defensive structures in the middle of it. I'm bad but maybe it's worth a try lol.)
- A bigger army by suiciding SCVs and relying on mules.
- Something else that no one's thought of yet
|
On May 07 2012 11:56 The ImmortaI One 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 agree basically with the WoL being not anymore the version to do the tweaks and changing the medivac mechanics. I disagree however with marauders and reintroduction of the reaver. medivacs have broken the game by being too flexible especially that Terran can always go bio regardless of the matchup. Make medivac an exclusive transpo ship and add medics. More skills, more fun.
This post is wrong on so many levels I don't even....
The thing is, there are two mechanics which made the game really, really hard to balance. Those are the Queen/Inject mechanic, and the Warpgate mechanic. Simply this means that Protoss has no attacker disadvantage, and Zerg can have many many more units and workers than the other two races. This screws things up immensely, so they added versatile units for Terran to counteract that.
|
On May 07 2012 12:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:03 lawlohwhat wrote:
This daily is silly.
The reason Puma won that engagement in the middle was because protoss decided to engage with his zealots behind his entire army and went up against a planetary fortress. Even then it was an even trade. Not to mention the complete lack of storms and relatively low archon count. Well the protoss could never afford either. Puma did not let the protoss max, he also made the protoss attack early by taking the aggressive expansion.
So... Terran can win if they don't let it go to a proper lategame. We know that. That's exactly what Blizzard said.
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. Terran has to prevent that from happening to win, in most cases, which makes for less interesting gameplay. If Protoss (and Zerg's) strategy vT is "survive until I can't lose" and Terran's strategy vP and vZ is "do enough damage in the first 20 minutes that I don't lose" that is boring and shitty design.
|
On May 07 2012 12:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:03 lawlohwhat wrote:
This daily is silly.
The reason Puma won that engagement in the middle was because protoss decided to engage with his zealots behind his entire army and went up against a planetary fortress. Even then it was an even trade. Not to mention the complete lack of storms and relatively low archon count. Well the protoss could never afford either. Puma did not let the protoss max, he also made the protoss attack early by taking the aggressive expansion.
In a way he's right, though. Spending more minerals on Marines instead of Marauders and getting about 6 more Ghosts would have made the engagement go similarly, but Puma would have had the Ghosts left over as well which are just so good against Protoss.
|
On May 07 2012 12:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:03 lawlohwhat wrote:
This daily is silly.
The reason Puma won that engagement in the middle was because protoss decided to engage with his zealots behind his entire army and went up against a planetary fortress. Even then it was an even trade. Not to mention the complete lack of storms and relatively low archon count. Well the protoss could never afford either. Puma did not let the protoss max, he also made the protoss attack early by taking the aggressive expansion.
That's fine, but the engagement was horrible for protoss and it almost didn't matter.
|
On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:06 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2012 12:03 lawlohwhat wrote:
This daily is silly.
The reason Puma won that engagement in the middle was because protoss decided to engage with his zealots behind his entire army and went up against a planetary fortress. Even then it was an even trade. Not to mention the complete lack of storms and relatively low archon count. Well the protoss could never afford either. Puma did not let the protoss max, he also made the protoss attack early by taking the aggressive expansion. So... Terran can win if they don't let it go to a proper lategame. We know that. That's exactly what Blizzard said. What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. Terran has to prevent that from happening to win, in most cases, which makes for less interesting gameplay. If Protoss (and Zerg's) strategy vT is "survive until I can't lose" and Terran's strategy vP and vZ is "do enough damage in the first 20 minutes that I don't lose" that is boring and shitty design.
Well, I don't know what do tell you. Do you think you should be rewarded for being inactive for 20 minutes? Should I be rewarded for that in PvZ? That is not Starcraft, it is not a "20 minutes, no rush" game.
|
On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind.
No! The Terran is not behind. If both races have completed tech trees then you have fully upgraded thors, battlecruisers and tanks. Those can pack a serious punch.
|
OMG, almost 2 years since release and people are still whining about Warpgate and Larva inject?
The mechanics that have almost not being touched upon since launch and that belong to the 2 non dominant races in SC2?
Those 2 mechanics are here to stay, deal with it.Why do people forget that P is the least successful race in SC2 historically? Warpgate has not been fundamentally changed and now for some reason its broken?
|
On May 07 2012 12:16 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. No! The Terran is not behind. If both races have completed tech trees then you have fully upgraded thors, battlecruisers and tanks. Those can pack a serious punch.
By that logic, the Protoss can have 66 voidrays with 3/3/3. That's really stupid logic.
|
On May 07 2012 12:17 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:16 KingLol wrote:On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. No! The Terran is not behind. If both races have completed tech trees then you have fully upgraded thors, battlecruisers and tanks. Those can pack a serious punch. By that logic, the Protoss can have 66 voidrays with 3/3/3. That's really stupid logic.
P is so OP on Phantom mode @_@
|
On May 07 2012 12:16 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. No! The Terran is not behind. If both races have completed tech trees then you have fully upgraded thors, battlecruisers and tanks. Those can pack a serious punch.
Whatever you're smoking, I want some of that.
|
On May 07 2012 12:16 windsupernova wrote:
OMG, almost 2 years since release and people are still whining about Warpgate and Larva inject?
The mechanics that have almost not being touched upon since launch and that belong to the 2 non dominant races in SC2?
Those 2 mechanics are here to stay, deal with it.Why do people forget that P is the least successful race in SC2 historically? Warpgate has not been fundamentally changed and now for some reason its broken?
I'm not trying to whine, I'm just responding to him saying that "medivacs and marauders are the problem", when they aren't, but the mechanics of the other two races make it so that it's extremely hard to have micro-able army units similar to how you can micro the Marine to insane cost-effectiveness, but still have all the races balanced.
|
On May 07 2012 12:18 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:17 Fencer710 wrote:On May 07 2012 12:16 KingLol wrote:On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. No! The Terran is not behind. If both races have completed tech trees then you have fully upgraded thors, battlecruisers and tanks. Those can pack a serious punch. By that logic, the Protoss can have 66 voidrays with 3/3/3. That's really stupid logic. P is so OP on Phantom mode @_@
Not really. Raven HSM and BC's beat any maxed Protoss or Terran army in Phantom mode since you can't really split your voidrays in that.
|
On May 07 2012 12:17 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:16 KingLol wrote:On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. No! The Terran is not behind. If both races have completed tech trees then you have fully upgraded thors, battlecruisers and tanks. Those can pack a serious punch. By that logic, the Protoss can have 66 voidrays with 3/3/3. That's really stupid logic.
Yes, it IS stupid, which is why I pointed it out to him.
|
On May 07 2012 12:20 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:17 Fencer710 wrote:On May 07 2012 12:16 KingLol wrote:On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. No! The Terran is not behind. If both races have completed tech trees then you have fully upgraded thors, battlecruisers and tanks. Those can pack a serious punch. By that logic, the Protoss can have 66 voidrays with 3/3/3. That's really stupid logic. Yes, it IS stupid, which is why I pointed it out to him.
By completed tech trees etc, he meant that the Terran has 3/3 Vikings and Bio, as well as an ideal army composition, and the Protoss has 3/3/3 on his units, as well as his ideal army mixture from gateways and robos. Which actually favors the Terran if he makes the right army mixture, which is 15+ Ghosts, 14+ Vikings, and the rest of the supply in Marine/Marauder/Medivac and less than 50 SCV's with the power of Macro Orbitals.
|
To be honest, it's looking more and more like the problem is not that there is unit imbalance, but that Terran players are having trouble transitioning to viable ultra-late game compositions.
|
On May 07 2012 12:16 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 12:10 corpuscle wrote:
What people have an issue with is that if both races complete their tech trees, and have equal bases, upgrades, and army sizes, the Terran is behind. No! The Terran is not behind. If both races have completed tech trees then you have fully upgraded thors, battlecruisers and tanks. Those can pack a serious punch.
Yeah, I'll invest 3550 gas into getting 3/3 on all my units while the Protoss spends 1575 to get 3/3/3 on all of theirs, while going Battlecruiser (400/300 + 150/150 for fusion core + lack of medivac/viking production unless you add more starports), Thor (300/200 + cost of factories which you usually have to rebuild because they are useless except for scouting for most of the game), and ghosts (200/100 + 250/250 for upgrades)
that makes a lot of sense
By completed tech trees etc, he meant that the Terran has 3/3 Vikings and Bio, as well as an ideal army composition, and the Protoss has 3/3/3 on his units, as well as his ideal army mixture from gateways and robos. Which actually favors the Terran if he makes the right army mixture, which is 15+ Ghosts, 14+ Vikings, and the rest of the supply in Marine/Marauder/Medivac and less than 50 SCV's with the power of Macro Orbitals.
you do realize that if you have 15 ghosts, 14 vikings, 8 medivacs, and 50 SCV's, you're gonna be running around with an MM ball of no more than 50 units (assuming an 1:1 ratio of marine to marauder), which is pathetically small
edit: also if you're doing the "sac SCVs and rely on MULEs for income" thing you're absolutely fucked if you suddenly lose SCVs or your extra orbitals, you're taking a huge risk just to do that.
|
On May 07 2012 12:25 KingLol wrote:
To be honest, it's looking more and more like the problem is not that there is unit imbalance, but that Terran players are having trouble transitioning to viable ultra-late game compositions.
This is true.
I wouldn't complain about TvP at all if I could magically make 3/3 BCs and Thors appear on screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
