|
On August 26 2013 09:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 09:47 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 26 2013 09:46 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2013 09:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 26 2013 09:42 ZenithM wrote:
Every single time a race does well (aka, one guy wins a tournament? :D), armchair designers come out of the woods and tell the words about how this race's design is fundamentally broken. I know that well, I've done it before.
But really, Terran is well designed, move along. And every time anybody tries to talk about anything on a Forum (where you talk about things) people come in and tell them that isn't worth talking about it. But really, if you have nothing to add, don't say anything. Get out. But he was saying something. He was saying, "I disagree, terran is well designed." Disagreeing is not saying nothing. It doesn't add to the discussion at all to come in and say I agree, or I disagree. That is why +1 posts get a warning or ban on this forum. If -1 meant you disagree, people would get warning or bans too. Thank God the mods don't allow that either, because this forum would be terrible. Obviously he doesn't want to discuss it or talk about, otherwise he'd explain why. Frankly, I find it pretty rude for someone to come in and tell us that what we are discussing isn't worth a discussion. He provided reasons why he disagreed and pointed out a trend that he sees after major events and threads of this type. It was not a +1 or - 1. He had talking points. Also, I agree with him. We have to many people coming out making "design threads" where every just sort of rehashes the same ideas over and over. Its tired and not very productive and mostly is veiled balance whining or an excuse to whine about how tanks should be buffed.
Yes, I understand how threads like this can be irritating. However, I brought this thread at a time, which I felt most appropriate. The Terran's reliance on Bio has been going on for the whole SC2 period to the point that we rarely see any creativity from Terran players (except when it is a TvT). The Terran players who dare to be different lose silly when they fail BADLY. While other balance threads whined about how Terran has the "OP bio", I wanted to provide a different perspective on a possible problem that Terran players are currently going through. I did not make a suggestion on just focusing on mech. I just am simply suggesting that we should give Terran more options in their play, and hopefully (though doubtfully), Blizzard will start rethinking about their approach on buffing other race units and focus more on how other Terran compositions can be viable. As a matter of fact, you can argue how Terran do not have a viable super late game composition, compared to other races.
If I can remember, there was actually a thread on Protoss design flaws. I am simply trying to recreate that thread. Was there a lot of whining? Yes. But it did provide a different view on why Protoss was suffering. It wasn't because of the balance but how the race worked that made Protoss suffer. As a matter of fact, those problems were readdressed in HoTS, and now Protoss do have a fighting chances as championship contenders.
|
On August 26 2013 09:38 HeeroFX wrote:
Terran has the most options nearly all the units gel together really well. Bio/mech Pure mech, pure bio. It works Terran have many harrass options. They are weak in a death ball vs death ball situation (unless mech.) The problem with Terran is you can't remax as fast as zerg or protoss. I don't really see a flaw in the design of the race of Terran, if anything it is the most developed. It is funny to see a post like this after bomber 4-0 Jaedong. As far as mirror match ups go TvT is probably the best simply because nearly all styles can be used in it. A person going pure bio can beat a pure mech player and so on. Sure you see a lot of bio from the pros but that is because Bio is just the best option and the strongest because you can deal with just about everything with bio. Mech is harder but technically would be the strongest.
That seems like a pretty wild-ass assertion. "We never see mech outside of TvT, but it is actually the strongest." It's a totally meaningless statement, since we are unable to determine it's truth value, it's at best speculation, at best.
What if I told you that there is a planet made of cheese, neither of us have ever seen that planet, but my assertion that such planet exists is grounds enough for people to believe it. But I got a better idea, why not show us some evidence. I mean if Mech is so strong you should have an easy time naming all the succesful top players who regularly go mech in TvP and TvZ.
I mean if no top korean player has any success going mech what reason do you have to believe that it is viable at that level of play? Or better yet, why should I believe you? If no top players succesfully go mech (outside of TvT) in any of the major and premier tournaments, I have no reason to believe that it's viable at that level of play. Because if it was viable, these top players would be straight up retarded for not making use of it.
|
On August 26 2013 09:42 ZenithM wrote:
Every single time a race does well (aka, one guy wins a tournament? :D), armchair designers come out of the woods and tell the world about how this race's design is fundamentally broken. I know that well, I've done it before.
But really, Terran is well designed, move along.
If I had to explain myself without putting up a wall of text, I'd say that game design is a much more subtle thing than a lot of people here think (like, people who regularly say "David Kim and Dustin Browder don't know what they're doing blahblahblah")
You can't take each race and list a bunch of unit compositions and call that a thread about design, a lot more goes into making Starcraft a well-designed (and balanced) game. Things like timings, risk vs reward, availability of information, range of strategies, etc...
I myself play mainly bio-based stuff in all three matchups, but I still have the feeling that I'm playing 3 different ways. Openings are different, things you fear from the other race are different (which changes your mindset and what you're looking for when you play), transitions are different and even engagements are different.
I for one think that Terran is way better designed than Protoss (for example). It takes less risks (from a design perspective), it's the closest to what has been done for 20 years of RTS and works well, units are varied and useful, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, they come out at a predictable rate, and the tech tree flows well...
Protoss has always felt like relying on some kind of "trick" for a build to work. A lot of their stuff is designed (even lore-wise) around deception: dark templars, warp-ins (you never know from where it can come), hallucinations, blink attacks (if I lose high ground vision show's over :D) etc... If the opponent doesn't fall for the trick, you're in deep shit most of the time and you will take ages to transition out of it.
See, this is not an analysis, I'm not pretending that I know that Protoss is less well-designed than Terran, it's just pure feeling and holds no convincing value. But I think we shouldn't discuss design, most of us aren't designers. We can complain about the balance of the game, sure, because that's what matters in the end, but there is already a thread for that.
This just feels like another of those "X race is broken design-wise (NOT A BALANCE THREAD!!!!!)" threads that just gets locked because nothing meaningful comes out of it.
|
As long Zergs can just DENDI HOOK every huge unit you wont see Mech or Air vs Zerg. And I bet Protoss are really pissed about this unit too. Thx to stim our low tier has the dips needed to kill a zerg. And poor protoss has nothing to really kill mutas.
|
I think tank need some buff and Blizz has to be extremely careful. I don't think it's as bad as OP makes it out to be though.
|
While people may complain that from a design perspective Terran may have the least compositional choice it is also a good thing. I like how straight up Terran is able to play. Every game you can make the same composition and practice the same mechanics for its execution. People may complain this is boring but then but then why not play zerg which has the most compositional flexibility?
|
On August 26 2013 08:48 hansonslee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 08:08 CivilAnarchy wrote:
Sorry to say this, and I don't mean this to be inflammatory or insulting, but this topic is simply because you're biased from a Terran viewpoint. The subtle logical fallacies in what you consider to be viable openings in other matchups, but then don't list in Terran matchups, sort of proves this.
So, for example,
"Zerg (vs. Terran):
- Mutalisk/Zerg/Baneling
- Roach/Ling/Baneling rush (rare lately)
- Broodlord/Infestor/Ultralisk/Viper (getting rare lately)"
So in this group, you list an allin as a viable playstyle, and yet when you mention Terran, you literally mention none of their potential allins.
Terran still has the Marauder Hellion all-in, double starport banshee all-in, marine tank all-in, Polt's Marine Maurader Hellion 9 min push/all-in.
In addition to that, you list Ultra-Viper-Broodlord-Queen, but don't list Sky Terran. Arguably, getting to the ultimate composition of zerg units is just as hard as getting to an ultimate composition of raven/viking/banshee.
And you're also not listing the Reaper/Hellion/Banshee opening that's meant to delay a zerg third base, or Bomber's Marine/Mine/Medivac style.
Different styles of Terran exist, and not listing them doesn't help your point, it just hinders it. If you're mad about having to use 4M, then learn some of these other all-ins and openers, or try Mech, or do something else.
And before anyone says, double port banshee is useless if you scout it, the same sort of logic applies to Roach/Bane all-ins. All right, I guess I will add those, but then again, those openings you have mentioned are still very rare. Even I mentioned how zerg all-ins are rare as of now. My point still stands that majority of Terran players have lately not utilized different compositions. I remember MVP doing very different styles, but he's been out, as those strategies work on very SPECIFIC situations. Reaper/Hellion/Banshee is meant to deal with the 3rd base, but for this one to work, the reaper needs to do a little bit of damage, and hellion needs to do sufficient damage, and the banshee needs to do some damage. Such attack is a big investment, so it needs to do a LOT of damage. But guess what? Zerg players can easily counter that with good scouting, zergling surrounds (thanks to creep spread), and spore crawlers. Marauder/Hellion is do-able but that requires a very specific timing and needs to rely on lack of Zerg scouting, which is nearly impossible. Also, with the third base ready, zerg will get mutalisks to counter it hard. Also, Bomber did try Thor and Hellbat, but that failed miserably. Furthermore, I have mentioned how most of all-ins have become rare lately. And you even said how the all-in's you have mentioned are easily countered by scouting. Finally, I am not a Terran player. I play Random, so you cannot really say that I am heavily biased from a Terran standpoint.
So, therein lies another logical fallacy with this, that you specify that there's something wrong with these openings simply because they're more uncommon. Your contentions also are problematic because you, again, are looking at this from an entirely Terran perspective without considering the other aspects.
Objectively, you're wrong about the Reaper/Hellion/Banshee opening. Bomber used it against scarlett, killing maybe 1 drone even with a proxy barracks. The point of the build isn't to do damage, it's to prevent a third. So you don't have to do damage at all with it. As a high masters Zerg, I go up against this every once in awhile, and trust me, no drones have to be killed. Sure, maybe creep spread needs to be denied, but as long as you take a third behind it, and deny the Zerg third, you will come out ahead. If you're taking an aggressive stance with reapers and hellions, the Zerg will not be able to spread creep to a third location, meaning those ling surrounds and spores don't actually do anything. Spores can't help you if you can't place them down in the first place.
How is it nearly impossible to deny Zerg scouting? A wall-off and well positioned marines can deal with any Zerg player who doesn't want to go for overlord speed.
And again, you're holding the Terran builds to a different standard to the Zerg Builds. A Roach/Bane All-in is easily held if scouted, and unlike Zerg, you actually cannot deny a Terran scouting your base (scans). And if Zerg is taking a third, they won't have mutas out by the time that attack comes in. It's literally designed to be that way. Only two base muta deals with it in that manner.
The reality is, you're saying that Terran all-ins are, somehow, inviable, without actually substantiating that point, and only saying it because they're not as common. As we can see with Bombers little combat shield timing against Scarlett, just because something is uncommon, doesn't mean that it's not viable. In fact, the root of the problem might actually be that 4M is so overwhelmingly strong of a playstyle, that people would rather play that style. That's not a problem with the design of Terran, and saying that other styles should be buffed to that level is frankly a cry for an overpowered race to be created.
And it doesn't matter if you're a random player, if you refuse to hold Terran builds to the same standards that you're holding Zerg and Protoss builds to, then your argument is based on a biased premise. The problem in your argument may not be based in the manifestation of your character, but rather a flaw in your viewpoint.
|
I think Blizzard is just praying right now that Protoss doesn't go the same way as it did in WoL.
|
The main problem is TvP.
MMMVG since 2010. Yeah!
|
On August 26 2013 10:24 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 09:42 ZenithM wrote:
Every single time a race does well (aka, one guy wins a tournament? :D), armchair designers come out of the woods and tell the world about how this race's design is fundamentally broken. I know that well, I've done it before.
But really, Terran is well designed, move along. If I had to explain myself without putting up a wall of text, I'd say that game design is a much more subtle thing than a lot of people here think (like, people who regularly say "David Kim and Dustin Browder don't know what they're doing blahblahblah") You can't take each race and list a bunch of unit compositions and call that a thread about design, a lot more goes into making Starcraft a well-designed (and balanced) game. Things like timings, risk vs reward, availability of information, range of strategies, etc... I myself play mainly bio-based stuff in all three matchups, but I still have the feeling that I'm playing 3 different ways. Openings are different, things you fear from the other race are different (which changes your mindset and what you're looking for when you play), transitions are different and even engagements are different. I for one think that Terran is way better designed than Protoss (for example). It takes less risks (from a design perspective), it's the closest to what has been done for 20 years of RTS and works well, units are varied and useful, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, they come out at a predictable rate, and the tech tree flows well... Protoss has always felt like relying on some kind of "trick" for a build to work. A lot of their stuff is designed (even lore-wise) around deception: dark templars, warp-ins (you never know from where it can come), hallucinations, blink attacks (if I lose high ground vision show's over :D) etc... If the opponent doesn't fall for the trick, you're in deep shit most of the time and you will take ages to transition out of it. See, this is not an analysis, I'm not pretending that I know that Protoss is less well-designed than Terran, it's just pure feeling and holds no convincing value. But I think we shouldn't discuss design, most of us aren't designers. We can complain about the balance of the game, sure, because that's what matters in the end, but there is already a thread for that. This just feels like another of those "X race is broken design-wise (NOT A BALANCE THREAD!!!!!)" threads that just gets locked because nothing meaningful comes out of it.
Okay, at least, you explained yourself. Of course, the pacing of the compositions will be different. Against Zerg, Terran has to use splits. Against Protoss, it is the EMP's and Viking positioning.
Like I said, compared to other races, Terran is unusually linear with its match up against other races. Back in the WoL, at least, Terran could mech or use marine tank against Zerg. But what about Toss? Well, what's sad is how TvP has remained unchanged, compared to other matchups. Again, you misinterpret what I said. I never said bio was broken, but instead Terran forced on one tech path. So far, it's looking good, but what if Terran and Zerg finally figure out how to counter the composition, and Blizzard introduces balance changes that place bio in an uncomfortable spot? What then?
Although I see your implied point that composition doesn't dictate the game but the one who is using the composition, I think Terran should have more options to provide more variance and unpredictability in their play. As shown in Innovation, you can have the best mechanics, but without a sense of flexibility, you will definitely lose our momentum.
Finally, you are right to state subtleties in the game. However, such minuet differences don't mean anything, if people don't see the game as in-depth as you do. I view myself more as a semi-casual observer. Of course, I will state how Starcraft 2 is a beautiful RTS game, but at the same time, if I notice how repetitive the game is being, then the staleness of the game will be manifested over the overall design of the game.
If we look at BW, for example, Terran had different openings for different races (mech for Protoss and Bio against Zerg). Even, Protoss, whose main composition was gateway units, did change it up with robo tech or corsairs/carriers. Zerg used mutalisks and lurkers and later ultralisks, cracklings, and defilers against Terran and hydralisk/lurker against Protoss.
|
On August 26 2013 10:36 CivilAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 08:48 hansonslee wrote:On August 26 2013 08:08 CivilAnarchy wrote:
Sorry to say this, and I don't mean this to be inflammatory or insulting, but this topic is simply because you're biased from a Terran viewpoint. The subtle logical fallacies in what you consider to be viable openings in other matchups, but then don't list in Terran matchups, sort of proves this.
So, for example,
"Zerg (vs. Terran):
- Mutalisk/Zerg/Baneling
- Roach/Ling/Baneling rush (rare lately)
- Broodlord/Infestor/Ultralisk/Viper (getting rare lately)"
So in this group, you list an allin as a viable playstyle, and yet when you mention Terran, you literally mention none of their potential allins.
Terran still has the Marauder Hellion all-in, double starport banshee all-in, marine tank all-in, Polt's Marine Maurader Hellion 9 min push/all-in.
In addition to that, you list Ultra-Viper-Broodlord-Queen, but don't list Sky Terran. Arguably, getting to the ultimate composition of zerg units is just as hard as getting to an ultimate composition of raven/viking/banshee.
And you're also not listing the Reaper/Hellion/Banshee opening that's meant to delay a zerg third base, or Bomber's Marine/Mine/Medivac style.
Different styles of Terran exist, and not listing them doesn't help your point, it just hinders it. If you're mad about having to use 4M, then learn some of these other all-ins and openers, or try Mech, or do something else.
And before anyone says, double port banshee is useless if you scout it, the same sort of logic applies to Roach/Bane all-ins. All right, I guess I will add those, but then again, those openings you have mentioned are still very rare. Even I mentioned how zerg all-ins are rare as of now. My point still stands that majority of Terran players have lately not utilized different compositions. I remember MVP doing very different styles, but he's been out, as those strategies work on very SPECIFIC situations. Reaper/Hellion/Banshee is meant to deal with the 3rd base, but for this one to work, the reaper needs to do a little bit of damage, and hellion needs to do sufficient damage, and the banshee needs to do some damage. Such attack is a big investment, so it needs to do a LOT of damage. But guess what? Zerg players can easily counter that with good scouting, zergling surrounds (thanks to creep spread), and spore crawlers. Marauder/Hellion is do-able but that requires a very specific timing and needs to rely on lack of Zerg scouting, which is nearly impossible. Also, with the third base ready, zerg will get mutalisks to counter it hard. Also, Bomber did try Thor and Hellbat, but that failed miserably. Furthermore, I have mentioned how most of all-ins have become rare lately. And you even said how the all-in's you have mentioned are easily countered by scouting. Finally, I am not a Terran player. I play Random, so you cannot really say that I am heavily biased from a Terran standpoint. So, therein lies another logical fallacy with this, that you specify that there's something wrong with these openings simply because they're more uncommon. Your contentions also are problematic because you, again, are looking at this from an entirely Terran perspective without considering the other aspects. Objectively, you're wrong about the Reaper/Hellion/Banshee opening. Bomber used it against scarlett, killing maybe 1 drone even with a proxy barracks. The point of the build isn't to do damage, it's to prevent a third. So you don't have to do damage at all with it. As a high masters Zerg, I go up against this every once in awhile, and trust me, no drones have to be killed. Sure, maybe creep spread needs to be denied, but as long as you take a third behind it, and deny the Zerg third, you will come out ahead. If you're taking an aggressive stance with reapers and hellions, the Zerg will not be able to spread creep to a third location, meaning those ling surrounds and spores don't actually do anything. Spores can't help you if you can't place them down in the first place. How is it nearly impossible to deny Zerg scouting? A wall-off and well positioned marines can deal with any Zerg player who doesn't want to go for overlord speed. And again, you're holding the Terran builds to a different standard to the Zerg Builds. A Roach/Bane All-in is easily held if scouted, and unlike Zerg, you actually cannot deny a Terran scouting your base (scans). And if Zerg is taking a third, they won't have mutas out by the time that attack comes in. It's literally designed to be that way. Only two base muta deals with it in that manner. The reality is, you're saying that Terran all-ins are, somehow, inviable, without actually substantiating that point, and only saying it because they're not as common. As we can see with Bombers little combat shield timing against Scarlett, just because something is uncommon, doesn't mean that it's not viable. In fact, the root of the problem might actually be that 4M is so overwhelmingly strong of a playstyle, that people would rather play that style. That's not a problem with the design of Terran, and saying that other styles should be buffed to that level is frankly a cry for an overpowered race to be created. And it doesn't matter if you're a random player, if you refuse to hold Terran builds to the same standards that you're holding Zerg and Protoss builds to, then your argument is based on a biased premise. The problem in your argument may not be based in the manifestation of your character, but rather a flaw in your viewpoint.
Well, I guess that's my bad for ignoring Bomber's build against Scarlett. But currently, Bomber used that build a few times. Now, for something to be viable, it needs to happen on a timely basis. After all, what keeps something living? It's the amount of time that certain thing exists. Thus, I don't see how rarity as a factor for viability is a logically fallacy in this scenario, unless the opening is something new and unfamiliar.
As of now, I really do hope that Bomber's aggressive openings do become viable. But my question is why hasn't other Terran progamers have done what you have suggested? Maybe it's a new strategy, so we'll have to see how viable it can be. Or maybe it's just not that viable. Admittedly, I am not an expert, so I won't state how valid his strategies are at the moment.
But to my defense, we have seen a lot of Terran openings such as Hellion and Banshee harass, but those have gotten out of style because most Terran players prefer to go on 3 bases to get their war machine going. Finally, you are talking from a Zerg's standpoint. What about Protoss? Currently, the TvP meta has remained relatively unchanged, which is pretty shameful imo.
Also, if you look at the standard I hold for all-ins, I have stated that they are rare. So, I don't see how I am placing Terran on a different standard than Zerg is. Furthermore, I have listed the Zerg all-in as an option, but lately, Terrans have found a way to counter it. Yes, it's still a tool in the Zerg's arsenal. Is it viable in the current meta? Relatively no.
Aside from players like Bomber, Flash, and MVP, most Terran players refuse to change it up. I was trying to figure out why and made some possible hypothesis of why that might be the case. If you look at my thread history, I try my best to look at different perspectives. I am bringing up a Terran's view because I want to state how Terran, though as a winning race as it is, cannot utilize any other compositions at the moment. If anything, I am trying to introduce a more sympathetic view of the Terran race. Why should I bring in a Zerg/Protoss perspective when I am talking about why Terran sticks to the handy-dandy bio?
|
On August 26 2013 09:42 ZenithM wrote:
But I think we shouldn't discuss design, most of us aren't designers.
Thinking this is way is a real problem. It is like we should ignore something obvious, because deep down, there is some subtle game design trickery going on that we can't see, and that if we could we'd immediately realize the superiority of David Kim and the Blizzard design team. Basically you're stating we shouldn't think for ourselves and we should trust the design team.
Imagine if we did that with politics... or when you got to buy a car, "just trust that salesman he is the expert"... that is an ignorant way to think. And it is how you get burned in life.
And mind you, this is the team who brought us the Warhound, and didn't realize it would be a bad idea until Beta! A good design team would have never let that idea make it to Beta. This is also the design team who release Hellbats as is. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Hellbats were BFH 2.0 based on their stats alone! And I argued that on this forum and the Blizzard forum during the Beta, as did many others. Why couldn't Blizzard see that? How could I have predicted the power of Hellbats, I'm not part of the design team? Because it was obvious. I'm honestly shocked at how little foresight the Blizzard design team has. Ideas like the Replicant and Warhound should have been laughed at by the lead designer and a good design team never would have wasted time and money developing them. But they did.
So call a spade a spade here. Mech is dead. We don't see it. I hardly play SC2 anymore and I play Protoss when I do, but I watch a lot of SC2 and I want to see more than MMMM or MMMVG every game from Terran in non-mirrors.
Now I understand that a lot of people will argue that Blizzard is doing a great job. And on some things they are. But judge the design team based on their game, and while they do a lot of great things, their success at making Mech work is not one of them, despite being a goal for HOTS.
|
You know while 4M in TvZ makes the matchup predictable to watch and play; I still find it very exciting at least to spectate as that play style really does keep the fight rolling through the entire 10+ minute period. Personally I actually go mech in TvZ; I think that mech is just easier to handle and you can harass just as well with hellbat drops (late game) as you used to be able to. Also the new Thor mode is really handy in case some brood lords show up as thors actually outrange BL so they can sit behind hellbats and still hit the brood lords.
|
On August 26 2013 10:45 larse wrote:
The main problem is TvP.
MMMVG since 2010. Yeah!
So what? TvP was tank vulture goliath vessel forever in BW and the mu was awesome. You don`t need varied compositions to enjoy the game.
Terrible OP, the list isn`t even accurate and mixes up builds, compositions and harras options. Describing PvT as deathball with late prism option is retardedly simplistic
|
On August 26 2013 11:34 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 10:45 larse wrote:
The main problem is TvP.
MMMVG since 2010. Yeah! You don`t need varied compositions to enjoy the game.
Yes, but variety is also pleasing. And there is no reason Mech can't work.
|
On August 26 2013 11:35 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 11:34 Scarecrow wrote:On August 26 2013 10:45 larse wrote:
The main problem is TvP.
MMMVG since 2010. Yeah! You don`t need varied compositions to enjoy the game. Yes, but variety is also pleasing. And there is no reason Mech can't work.
There is no reason carriers can be viable. But you don't see people making threads about it.
|
On August 26 2013 11:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 11:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 26 2013 11:34 Scarecrow wrote:On August 26 2013 10:45 larse wrote:
The main problem is TvP.
MMMVG since 2010. Yeah! You don`t need varied compositions to enjoy the game. Yes, but variety is also pleasing. And there is no reason Mech can't work. There is no reason carriers can be viable. But you don't see people making threads about it.
A single unit not being viable is no where equal to an entire style of play not being viable.
And there was plenty of threads about the Carrier. Did you not miss he uproar when Blizzard wanted to the remove the Carrier? And if Terran could actually go Mech, the Carrier would probably see more use.
|
On August 26 2013 09:28 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 08:28 Mayhemia- wrote:
TvP is also dull because you are making specific counter units all game long. Not ONCE, can you make protoss to react in your composition. Whatever unit I choose to build at 20 minutes mark, protoss has the units that counter it. Protoss can force reaction from Terran in the lategame. He can vary the colossus number, and Terran needs to be on top of that. This is wrong. Even though it is pretty much standard to mass marine/marauder, it's the mass marine/marauder that forces colossus and templar.
Yeah, technically you are right. What I ment tho, was that after it is established that Terran goes bio, and Protoss is down the Templar / Colossus road, there is no way for Terran to make any changes to the gameplan to force a reaction from Protoss.
It's kinda depressing, same goes basically for TvZ. You don't really have an awesome techswitch which would make zerg tremble in fear. You just press more and more marine/mine over the field until ultras come in and then you add some marines. (or Vikings vs Broodlords). The only choice is between Tanks and Mines. And Tanks are inferior, but sometimes a good metacall.
Terran is basically stuck in the midgame mode all game long because it's great and the higher tier units are useless.
Then we get to TvT where battlecruisers and ravens duel for air superiority whilst every other unit clashes below them. xD Only thing that saves TvZ a lot is the amount of cool micro and really back and forth games.
|
On August 26 2013 11:43 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 11:39 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2013 11:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 26 2013 11:34 Scarecrow wrote:On August 26 2013 10:45 larse wrote:
The main problem is TvP.
MMMVG since 2010. Yeah! You don`t need varied compositions to enjoy the game. Yes, but variety is also pleasing. And there is no reason Mech can't work. There is no reason carriers can be viable. But you don't see people making threads about it. A single unit not being viable is no where equal to an entire style of play not being viable. And there was plenty of threads about the Carrier. And if Terran could actually go Mech, the Carrier would see more use.
Sorry, I mean, skytoss and how it being viable is super important for the long term viability of SC2 as an Esport. Deep, super important issues.
And yeah, we would all like Terrans to be able to mech. I want to go zealot immortal every game, people keep building marines.
|
On August 26 2013 11:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 11:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 26 2013 11:39 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2013 11:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On August 26 2013 11:34 Scarecrow wrote:On August 26 2013 10:45 larse wrote:
The main problem is TvP.
MMMVG since 2010. Yeah! You don`t need varied compositions to enjoy the game. Yes, but variety is also pleasing. And there is no reason Mech can't work. There is no reason carriers can be viable. But you don't see people making threads about it. A single unit not being viable is no where equal to an entire style of play not being viable. And there was plenty of threads about the Carrier. And if Terran could actually go Mech, the Carrier would see more use. Sorry, I mean, skytoss and how it being viable is super important for the long term viability of SC2 as an Esport. Deep, super important issues. And yeah, we would all like Terrans to be able to mech. I want to go zealot immortal every game, people keep building marines.
Big difference there. Skytoss or any air only composition should not be viable. Terrain makes the game interesting, air units are the epitome of A-move units, and air only battles are boring and predictable with very little micro involved. Have you ever watched ZvZ Muta battles? Yeah, Blizzard did too, so they buffed the Spore Crawler... twice.
Air units should be used to support ground armies, and that is best for both players and spectators. That is where the Carrier could shine. But Blizzard decided to make another long range massive air unit built from the Stargate requiring a Fleet Beacon that essentially does the job better than the Carrier, when they could have just buffed the Carrier... there is that great design team for ya...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
