Note: This is focusing more on the design of Terran, not the state of balance of the race. This analysis will be focused on the compositions and builds that races currently use against each other.
MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD: I want Blizzard to rethink its approach and figure out ways to help other Terran playstyles become a viable option for the race. The simple band-aid approach, in my opinion, is not going to keep the game as exciting as the balance team argues it to be. In other words, they should NOT be afraid of making some radical changes as part of their balancing testing (it doesn't have to be implemented, if the radical change seems to be too game-changing).
After seeing a lot of games with Terran and hearing Flash's perspective, I think it is time to investigate why Terran is currently suffering from design problems.
Before I get into the Terran, let's look at other races:
Zerg (vs. Zerg): We see several types of gameplay: - Mutalisk wars (uncommon) - Mutalisk transition into roach/hydra - Roach/Hydra/Infestor - (Late game units are pretty rare)
Zerg (vs. Protoss): - Zerglings/Mutalisk for map control - Roach/Hydralisk with Viper Support - (Late game units are pretty rare)
Protoss (vs. Zerg): - Airtoss - Gateway units (up to tier 3) - Deathball (Colossus, Archon, Gateway units, High Templars, and maybe some air support)
Protoss (vs. Terran): - Deathball (sometimes, with 5 or 1 colossus) - If very late game, Warp Prism harass
---
Now with the Terran,
Terran (vs. Terran): - Hellbat/Helion opening into Mech - Banshee opening - Sky Terran (late game) - Bio with Tank Support
Terran (vs. Zerg): - MMMM - Reaper/Hellion/Banshee (rare) - Marauder/Hellion (rare) - (Hellbats are relatively nonexistent, due to the nerf).
Terran (vs. Protoss): - MMM with Ghost and Viking support
---
Unlike other races, Terran suffers from using bio only against other races. Yes, Protoss has the deathball, but it can use other compositions against Zerg and Protoss. Zerg has some of the most dynamic openings against Zerg and Protoss. Although Zerg does have tier 3 units against Terran, lately Terrans have prevented Zerg from reaching that far with the constant MMMM push.
TvT (in my opinion) is the most interesting mirror matchup because, unlike other mirror matchups, each player has its own preference. However, when it comes to other races, bio is the way to go. Mech is easily countered by vipers, zealots, immortals, etc, and it is very difficult to get ghost with Mech. As for Sky Terran, again those units are easy to counter with mass corruptors, Void Rays, and Tempest.
Suggestion: Instead of just crying about Bio, why not focus on improving other Terran units (although I think the WM could use some work)? I know Blizzard is trying to give modest buffs to zerg, but I think it is severely ignoring how Terran is an extremely inflexible race, which does not make any sense because Terran by design should be a versatile race.
EDIT: Added some Terran all-ins. EDIT # 2: After much argument with other people, I have decided to explain myself.
That's weird... I actually think Terran is the best designed race, by far. To me Terran IS the most flexible race...
When I play TvP (mech), I am constantly changing my army composition. Playing with one style doesn't mean all the games are the same. In fact, I am still learning this style (master level, imho it says a lot, because people below my level could learn even more), and each game is unique.
I'm surprised people are only getting temp bans for this when it's been going on long enough. I remember when it first started a long time ago and we got people to cut this shit out really fast. Not only that this guys been around since '11. That is just shameful. OP I find this relatively funny because technically you could say there are design flaws all across the board race to race. It is what it is and these comments won't fix it.
Terran is the most flexible race because bio is the most flexible composition and is rather easily supplemented with low numbers of other units if needed.
think about this, real life army, we use tanks and marines in fights at war.... Terran is based around the human race so what could they do? Making the window mine and banshee was about as imaginative but realistic as it gets without going overboard
I still play mech tvp and win agains mid gm protoss, also Strelok plays mech tvp on high gm level. The true is that most Terran players just follow the current meta in Korea...
Even Flash has said everything you have said, im pretty sure . As a Terran player I agree, they should make more or somehow improve without making mech units imba (warhound and hellbat (pre nerf) ) Maybe for teh next expansion they need to remove the some units and add newer ones, like the reaper for example, its only really useful for that early scout or 2 with 4 hellions for early presssure, after 6 minutes its useless unless you mass them ..... maybe bring back the science vessel and remove the raven i reckon that would strenghten mech considerably. Or like hellions make some mech unit that can transform between two modes which have drastically different tactics involved.
I've seen professional players win with mech against both zerg and protoss so it might not be the preferred strategy but it is viable at all levels except maybe the tip top.
Terran has similar core compositions in all matchups, its true, but has a thousand ways to get there and many late late game options, you can hardly complain.
On August 26 2013 06:19 Ambre wrote: That's weird... I actually think Terran is the best designed race, by far. To me Terran IS the most flexible race...
When I play TvP (mech), I am constantly changing my army composition. Playing with one style doesn't mean all the games are the same. In fact, I am still learning this style (master level, imho it says a lot, because people below my level could learn even more), and each game is unique.
Mech only works against Protoss and Zerg if your opponent has no clue how to deal with it. Yes there are a lot of Master League Protoss and Zerg, falling into that cathegory. If you have fun with it, fine do so . But for anyone who wants to perfect his gameplay, it´s a waste of time at the moment, because eventually you will hit a wall with it. When looking at it objectively, Terran has very limited options in both non-mirror matchups from the midgame onwards. That IS a terrible design weakness, because as mentioned in OP, every unit aside from those we use normally is hardcountered by a very simple to use unit of the other races. I could live very well with a stim pack nerf (because let´s be honest, stimmed marine/marauder have too high DPS for their cost) if we are compensated with a more useful package of factory and starport units. And no, that does not include widow mines or medivacs, but all other units that come from those production facilities. Battlecruisers ? a joke, Banshees? haha good one, ravens? LOLOOL! Siege Tanks? well they are somewhat useful to open very safely against zerg, but that´s pretty much a borderline appearance. Hellions, yes they are good in the earlygame but fall off hard after it, so yeah, hellions are fine. Thor? a joke of a unit in non mirrors. Hellbats? David Kim told us, we have too try out timings to include them again in our army composition. Apparently David Kim knows some extraordinary terran builds noone else does and refuses to share them with the rest of the world. Until those miracle builds are presented to the mass, I´ll say: Hellbats suck in their current state.
So yeah, at the moment Terran has one matchup that slowly but surely drifts away from the terran side in TvP due to the hellbat nerf and one matchup that is dominated by the race through a combination of 2 very strong (perhaps too strong) things, that harmonize just very well with each other: widow mines and stimmed marines. I can understand Zerg players, thinking we have no right to complain, because Terrans beat the shit out of them right now, but it´s very stupid if your fate in one matchup is bond to a unit like the widow mine. Because the destructive potential of the unit is nearly as high for the terran as it is for the opponent.
On August 26 2013 06:26 ShootingQuasar wrote: Even Flash has said everything you have said, im pretty sure . As a Terran player I agree, they should make more or somehow improve without making mech units imba (warhound and hellbat (pre nerf) ) Maybe for teh next expansion they need to remove the some units and add newer ones, like the reaper for example, its only really useful for that early scout or 2 with 4 hellions for early presssure, after 6 minutes its useless unless you mass them ..... maybe bring back the science vessel and remove the raven i reckon that would strenghten mech considerably. Or like hellions make some mech unit that can transform between two modes which have drastically different tactics involved.
Lolz, no. The reaper and raven are well-balanced units.
On August 26 2013 06:30 Steel wrote: I've seen professional players win with mech against both zerg and protoss so it might not be the preferred strategy but it is viable at all levels except maybe the tip top.
Terran has similar core compositions in all matchups, its true, but has a thousand ways to get there and many late late game options, you can hardly complain.
Really? Have you REALLY seen a professional mech game vs. zerg or protoss lately? Because the only one that comes to mind is the super shitty Lucifron vs. Goswer game that Lucifron lost. Mech is not viable except in TvT. Nothing is "viable" unless it can be done against tip top competition, it's only "possible". For instance, you could say that FilterSC's mass marine build is "possible" for people in diamond, but that doesn't make it viable.
On August 26 2013 06:23 Just_a_Moth wrote: Terran is the most flexible race because bio is the most flexible composition and is rather easily supplemented with low numbers of other units if needed.
The biggest issue of terran is that bio is too flexible while everything else is kind of a hard counter unit. Terran also faces the issue of not being able to control space well, which is why lategame TvP is so protoss-favoured. You can say that a BC transition is very strong, and undoubtedly, ghost/BC in TvP is one of the strongest armies in the game, but the inability to control space well makes these sorts of air transitions very risky.
The biggest issue facing terrans moving forward is that there are no real lategame options and the midgame is becoming stale once again. With the hellbat nerf, terrans lost a valuable map control mechanism in the early game, and so they've had to resort to the old WoL-type builds that stay very passive until 10:00. Even hellbat/marauder, an exciting new composition, was mostly killed by the nerf.
I played terran for a little while until I got bored of it. I can understand why a lot of terran players have retired between 2010 and now. Terran is never going to change from MMM.
You are mixing up rush builds with unit compositions with game speed. Terran can play very fast paced drop-centered games against zerg, doing more concentrated pushes from more bases (like bomber vs jaedong), rely more on tanks or more on widow mines. citing 4gate builds for PvP and only MMMM for TvZ is comparing apples and oranges.
I read your OP as "why is there only one way to play TvP and TvZ?" and the answer is: the question is wrong, there are a lot of ways to play these matchups. Even if your unit composition is similar each game, you can do so much different stuff with it!
And in the end: who cares if the games are good and entertaining and the game itself is not imbalanced?
On August 26 2013 06:38 TeeTS wrote: Mech only works against Protoss and Zerg if your opponent has no clue how to deal with it. Yes there are a lot of Master League Protoss and Zerg, falling into that cathegory. If you have fun with it, fine do so . But for anyone who wants to perfect his gameplay, it´s a waste of time at the moment, because eventually you will hit a wall with it. When looking at it objectively, Terran has very limited options in both non-mirror matchups from the midgame onwards. That IS a terrible design weakness, because as mentioned in OP, every unit aside from those we use normally is hardcountered by a very simple to use unit of the other races.
But who in here is high masters or at the brink of becoming it? I guess most people will never reach that level and so for playing ladder it's perfectly fine. It's harder because you have limited pro-plays to study but that doesn't mean it's not usable.
Ok, this is ridiculous. Just because Terran players can't do mech doesn't mean it doesn't have the most diverse combination of builds and puzzle pieces to play with of any race, period...
This is silly. Terran has more diversity in the way it can put together its compositions than both Zerg and Protoss. Protoss follows with a very close second...If you want to whine about diversity, whine about Zerg.
In fact, I'm glad the other races shit on mech as it is. Before you even think about enabling the most diverse race in the game to have another strategic subset, why don't you whine for Blizzard to enable the race which has the least strategic options or build flexibility?
I don't agree, Terran is one of the best designed, you can just look at the mirror matchup, it's the best. It's because of counter units like the Immortal u cannot mech in TvP and meching vs Zerg has a big timer, due to swarmhost/broodlords, but it can be done.
On August 26 2013 06:38 TeeTS wrote: Mech only works against Protoss and Zerg if your opponent has no clue how to deal with it. Yes there are a lot of Master League Protoss and Zerg, falling into that cathegory. If you have fun with it, fine do so . But for anyone who wants to perfect his gameplay, it´s a waste of time at the moment, because eventually you will hit a wall with it. When looking at it objectively, Terran has very limited options in both non-mirror matchups from the midgame onwards. That IS a terrible design weakness, because as mentioned in OP, every unit aside from those we use normally is hardcountered by a very simple to use unit of the other races.
But who in here is high masters or at the brink of becoming it? I guess most people will never reach that level and so for playing ladder it's perfectly fine. It's harder because you have limited pro-plays to study but that doesn't mean it's not usable.
The game is balanced for proffesionals, not for you and me.
The OP isn't saying that MMM plus support is bad or terran can't win, but the lack of unit composition options. It's important to take into account, that terran has the least flexible path for unit composition transitions, so it's important that in order for terran army comp to work it must be efficient against broader range of unit compositions that protoss/zerg can bring to the table to atleast, buy enough time for a more optimal comp.
This affects others race gameplay too in match ups against terran, since in regular macro games are forced to use one composition aswell that is most effective at dealing with bio (best example is TvP).
That's why if they managed to equalize mech to bio, or atleast biotank, terran match ups would improve greatly (like TvZ on WoL pre queen buff was so awesome, because it wasn't only one unit composition over and over) since the terran could choose between mobility or staying power, and other races act accordingly.
On August 26 2013 06:54 Qwyn wrote: Ok, this is ridiculous. Just because Terran players can't do mech doesn't mean it doesn't have the most diverse combination of builds and puzzle pieces to play with of any race, period...
This is silly. Terran has more diversity in the way it can put together its compositions than both Zerg and Protoss. Protoss follows with a very close second...If you want to whine about diversity, whine about Zerg.
In fact, I'm glad the other races shit on mech as it is. Before you even think about enabling the most diverse race in the game to have another strategic subset, why don't you whine for Blizzard to enable the race which has the least strategic options or build flexibility?
You are question begging (petitio principii). If your conclusion is that Terran is the most flexible race you can't use that as a premise in your argument "Terran is the most flexible race". That's just not how logic works.
By the way, I think that Zerg is by far the weakest race at this point in time, but this has nothing to do with this topic. We are looking for diversity in unit compositions, which I see alot less of in games that involve Terran. TvP is MMM Ghost vikings almost exclusively and in TvZ it's MMMM. That only addresses the diversity we see in Terran unit compositions, not their strength. I personally think mines are too strong vs. Zerg (and even stated exactly that on this forum), but that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
What if there was a fusion core unlocked upgrade to tanks' seige mode damage that did +20 to armored targets (thus increasing it to parity with their damage in BW) in LotV? Would that be anywhere close to balanced currently, and if not, what would need to change in order for it to be acceptable?
Also, is it possible that the BW feature of Vultures being faster than any other ground unit could have a role in SC2? Could a mid-to-late-game upgrade to Hellion's speed from 4.25 to either 4.75 or 5.25 increase the viability of hardcore harass-heavy builds into the late-game? It's sad that MMM drops have been monopolizing the late game harass of so many Terran games I see, particularly since mech's hellbat drops seem to be falling off.
Increasing the number of things that fusion core unlocks, particularly upgrades, is a good idea. More players building fusion cores means more opportunities to transition into BCs, and we all know how cool that is to see.
As a viewer, it gets really tiresome and boring watching bio being utilized every game by Terran. Bio every once and a while would be cool. But every game is not. Viewers want to see creativity and variety.
The real design flaw i think is that bio + good micro can be used every game in every matchup. Other unit combinations do not offer the speed, power, and harassment potential that MMM has. Not to mention MMM is also cheap.
I think originally the designers figured that bio's weakness would be its fragility. Every unit is supposed to have some kind of weakness or difficulty associated with it. Pro level micro and healing support negate these weaknesses.
On August 26 2013 07:02 ejozl wrote: I don't agree, Terran is one of the best designed, you can just look at the mirror matchup, it's the best. It's because of counter units like the Immortal u cannot mech in TvP and meching vs Zerg has a big timer, due to swarmhost/broodlords, but it can be done.
Swarmhost/broodlord isn't why mech isn't viable, vipers are. Viking/raven can take care of broodlords, and sufficient siege tanks can at least hold ground against swarmhosts, but even a pretty big viking count can't prevent a few blinding clouds going down and destroying your army.
When I say design flaws, I'm talking about how the options that each race can work with.
Now, Protoss did have its own design problems before the Warp Prism buff. Back then, it was mainly a race that either turtled with a 3+ base and get a good unit composition OR do a 2 base timing. During the WoL times, Protoss was extremely vulnerable to early game attacks, which is why the MSC is there to help Protoss deal with early game rushes. Furthermore, MSC help Protoss save expensive units. All-in-all, Protoss seems to be pretty good atm (imo), although we have yet to see Protoss win a Premiere tournament.
As for Zerg, it didn't have much a design problem per se, but it did suffer from balance problems (underpowered to overpowered). Right now, Zerg woes are being shown lately, but Jaedong seems to have brought in a new perspective of the Zerg meta (except against Terran). But I think a lot of Zerg units are currently under-utilized, but we will see how Zerg will develop.
To clarify a few things, I am not saying that Terran is OP. After reading about Flash's view and seeing how other Terrans plays, I just realized how Terran is faced with limited options. All-in-all, if Terran is suffering from this problem, it's pretty much a lose-lose situation for EVERYONE. Pro-players like Flash who love to try something different will be constantly frustrated with the meta. Other Terran progamers will abuse that same strategy because that's the only tactic they know would work. As for other race Progamers, they will find ways to beat that Bio heavy composition and place the Terran players in an eventual limbo. Finally, for the VIEWER like me and others, it gets really boring that Terran will always go for Bio, and it would be nice to see a variety of units from Terran against other races.
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.
Terran is not very well designed at the moment to be honest. TvT was best mirror match up in WoL, and I think it is still best mirror match up in the game. However, it is great because there are so many different styles. Each and every unit terran can make has a role in TvT.
The other match ups do not have similar variance. I'm going with pro games since everyone can mass carriers in their basement.
In TvP MMM+G, Whilst there are several ways to open. The target is always same. Variance is actually really small. There are a few light harassment openings and then CC first. Yay. Protoss has a ton of different and strong all ins, quite a few light harassment openings and ofc. the eco camp. Whilst protoss can use pretty much every unit they can build in the match up... Terran point of view:
- No Banshees - No Battlecruisers - No Ravens - No Thors - No Hellbats (since the nerf)
- Rarely any siege tanks. (All in defense only)
(It's btw funny that Protoss always complains about Terran staying on Tier 1 units. What the hell do you want me to build then? Our tier 3 is useless in the match up)
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 certainly creates a lot of the TvP balance whine, it feels so frustrating when you don't have the specific freaking unique counter unit and you just DIE.).
TvZ is a lot better.
Midgame has slightly more variance than the TvP, because Zerg has options to make the match up interesting. You still see Roach/Hydra being played sometimes, HyuN notably goes for huge amounts of roachlingbane, people choose between infestors and mutalisks... Terran composition depends mostly on opponent (I'm not exactly complaining about this, even tho I can see why it might be annoying that you can't force your opponent to react to your composition at all, but the other way around).
And only unit that sees pretty much no combat is Hellbat. Everything else is actually more or less viable. However a lot of the units that do not see action against Protoss are extremely rare in TvZ.
Banshees have started to show up in some early hellion mixes again, but I'm not convinced they'll continue showing up. Hellbats hardly ever see the light of the day. Battlecruisers are extremely rare Ravens are extremely rare
Thors have become rare, but some players are still building them to mix with bio when opponent goes mass mutas.
All in all, I feel that Zerg and Protoss can use most of their arsenal in all match ups. (Carriers excluded) Whilst Terran is more limited in their options. Now someone says, but those units can be used with mech! Tell me about that when mech starts showing up consistently in progames.
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.
The power of the Marine and the way the Terran tech tree is designed is the problem. Sometimes I wish instead of nerfing the Tank (when it did 60 damage to everything) Blizzard had nerfed the Marine. Imagine how much different SC2 would be today...
Anyway, the first issue is the Marine. The Marine is the big damage for Bio players, but it only costs minerals. This isn't an issue for Bio players. But it is for Mech players because Blizzard has to balance Terran as whole, and nothing stops Terran players from combining Marines with the big damage dealers from the Factory (Tanks) and the Starport (Banshees). Hence, we got the 1-1-1 dominating TvP and TvT for a time. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the Terran tech tree.
The Terran tech tree doesn't branch the way the Protoss or Zerg tech tree does. It goes Bio-Mech-Air, every time. Compare that to Protoss who don't have to make a Robotics to get Stargate units. Sure there is one additional structure for each tier (Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core) but there is almost little variation. This, combined with the tech lab add-on allows Terran to tech incredibly fast. That is a problem, because if any of the Terran units tech are any stronger then they are now, then Terran would just build them off one base an win.
So that is why we get things like the 1-1-1 from Terran, combining the mineral only Marines with gas intensive powerful tech units (Banshees and Tanks). If you improve the power of the Banshee, Tank, Thor, or even the Battlecruiser without counter balancing the Marine, you risk one base timings becoming too powerful.
Something simple, like reducing Marine HP by 5, but having Combat shields give +15 might allow Tanks to get the buff necessary to make Mech viable while not making the 1-1-1 imbalanced or destroying Bio play. And something would probably need to be done with the Viper too... Alternatively, Blizzard could slow the Terran tech tree, but that would hurt Bio players because they need access to Medivacs relatively quickly and would be a much bigger change.
If you showed me a screenshot of a lategame TvP army in WoL and a lategame TvP army in HotS I don't think I could tell the difference, the two armies would be indistinguishable. In WoL it was MMM+VG and in HotS it's MMM+VG.
Wasn't the whole point of HotS to introduce new units and open up new possibilities for all races?
I have a difficult time watching TvP because the matchup, past a certain point is pretty much exactly like it was on WoL. And I'm sorry but Strelok playing Mech has no impact on that. I respect Strelok, he's a really good player, but he hasn't done much at all in any major or premier tournament in months, so to me as a viewer of starcraft 2, him playing mech has no impact on my experience of the game. This isn't just true for me, it's true for everyone else who watches top level tournaments, because there is no strelok and there is no mech.
On August 26 2013 09:09 BronzeKnee wrote: The power of the Marine and the way the Terran tech tree is designed is the problem. Sometimes I wish instead of nerfing the Tank (when it did 60 damage to everything) Blizzard had nerfed the Marine. Imagine how much different SC2 would be today...
Anyway, the first issue is the Marine. The Marine is the big damage for Bio players, but it only costs minerals. This isn't an issue for Bio players. But it is for Mech players because Blizzard has to balance Terran as whole, and nothing stops Terran players from combining Marines with the big damage dealers from the Factory (Tanks) and the Starport (Banshees). Hence, we got the 1-1-1 dominating TvP and TvT for a time. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the Terran tech tree.
The Terran tech tree doesn't branch the way the Protoss or Zerg tech tree does. It goes Bio-Mech-Air, every time. Compare that to Protoss who don't have to make a Robotics to get Stargate units. Sure there is one additional structure for each tier (Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core) but there is almost little variation. This, combined with the tech lab add-on allows Terran to tech incredibly fast. That is a problem, because if any of the Terran units tech are any stronger then they are now, then Terran would just build them off one base an win.
So that is why we get things like the 1-1-1 from Terran, combining the mineral only Marines with gas intensive powerful tech units (Banshees and Tanks). If you improve the power of the Banshee, Tank, Thor, or even the Battlecruiser without counter balancing the Marine, you risk one base timings becoming too powerful.
Something simple, like reducing Marine HP by 5, but having Combat shields give +15 might allow Tanks to get the buff necessary to make Mech viable while not making the 1-1-1 imbalanced or destroying Bio play. And something would probably need to be done with the Viper too... Alternatively, Blizzard could slow the Terran tech tree, but that would hurt Bio players because they need access to Medivacs relatively quickly and would be a much bigger change.
I like your entire post tell the last paragraph, the suggestion don't really make sense. But this does sum up why Bio is terran's strongest option 100% of the time. You can produce 15 marines at a time constantly and constantly put on pressure look at Bomber's game (WCS S2 Finals) he loses 400-500 marines and he never stops pumping them out and sending huge waves of 30-40 marines with widow mine back up. One thing Terran has little use for gas when going bio and can get their econ up that much faster when taking bases.
The only way to start making other options better is to make the marine worse. because they only get stronger and stronger as the game goes on.
On August 26 2013 07:30 RedMosquito wrote: As a viewer, it gets really tiresome and boring watching bio being utilized every game by Terran. Bio every once and a while would be cool. But every game is not. Viewers want to see creativity and variety.
The real design flaw i think is that bio + good micro can be used every game in every matchup. Other unit combinations do not offer the speed, power, and harassment potential that MMM has. Not to mention MMM is also cheap.
I think originally the designers figured that bio's weakness would be its fragility. Every unit is supposed to have some kind of weakness or difficulty associated with it. Pro level micro and healing support negate these weaknesses.
Blizzard for whatever reason, seems to think that high tech units need to be massive A-move units and their only weakness is being slow.
Imagine if Reapers cost 25-25, had 6 range, did 6x2 to everything per shot, built in only 28 seconds (it is 45 now and Marines are 25), could be still Reactored and retained their self-heal. But Blizzard made a requirement that you had to have a Fusion Core built to build them.
They'd be an awesome late game replacement to the Marine that wouldn't require Medivacs for healing or traversing cliffs. High tech units don't need to be massive powerhouses or expensive spell casters. They could small speedy units like that. And that would make SC2 so much better.
On August 26 2013 07:30 RedMosquito wrote: As a viewer, it gets really tiresome and boring watching bio being utilized every game by Terran. Bio every once and a while would be cool. But every game is not. Viewers want to see creativity and variety.
The real design flaw i think is that bio + good micro can be used every game in every matchup. Other unit combinations do not offer the speed, power, and harassment potential that MMM has. Not to mention MMM is also cheap.
I think originally the designers figured that bio's weakness would be its fragility. Every unit is supposed to have some kind of weakness or difficulty associated with it. Pro level micro and healing support negate these weaknesses.
Blizzard for whatever reason, seems to think that high tech units need to be massive A-move units and their only weakness is being slow.
Imagine if Reapers cost 25-25, had 6 range, did 6x2 to everything per shot, built in only 28 seconds (it is 45 now and Marines are 25), could be still Reactored and retained their self-heal. But Blizzard made a requirement that you had to have a Fusion Core built to build them.
They'd be an awesome late game replacement to the Marine that wouldn't require Medivacs. High tech units don't need to be massive powerhouses or expensive spell casters. They could small speedy units like that. And that would make SC2 so much better.
I don´t know if I agree with your reaper Idea, but I totally support your point on the high tech units. High Tech units should be about unique abilities and Blizzard went the right direction with the viper here, which is fragile but offers strong, gamedeciding spells. I think the raven was intended to be of that kind too, but its spells are..... well not that gamedeciding.
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. Otherwise, your points are spot on; terran doesn't really have many options other than "how do I get to MMMGV?"
TvZ is a lot better.
Midgame has slightly more variance than the TvP, because Zerg has options to make the match up interesting. You still see Roach/Hydra being played sometimes, HyuN notably goes for huge amounts of roachlingbane, people choose between infestors and mutalisks... Terran composition depends mostly on opponent (I'm not exactly complaining about this, even tho I can see why it might be annoying that you can't force your opponent to react to your composition at all, but the other way around).
TvZ suffers from the same problems (although perhaps not quite as pronounced). The key to this is that you add a thor or some tanks or some hellbats or marauders to MARINE/MINE -_-. I actually hate this matchup right now, I never want to watch it hahaha.
On August 26 2013 09:09 BronzeKnee wrote: The power of the Marine and the way the Terran tech tree is designed is the problem. Sometimes I wish instead of nerfing the Tank (when it did 60 damage to everything) Blizzard had nerfed the Marine. Imagine how much different SC2 would be today...
Anyway, the first issue is the Marine. The Marine is the big damage for Bio players, but it only costs minerals. This isn't an issue for Bio players. But it is for Mech players because Blizzard has to balance Terran as whole, and nothing stops Terran players from combining Marines with the big damage dealers from the Factory (Tanks) and the Starport (Banshees). Hence, we got the 1-1-1 dominating TvP and TvT for a time. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the Terran tech tree.
The Terran tech tree doesn't branch the way the Protoss or Zerg tech tree does. It goes Bio-Mech-Air, every time. Compare that to Protoss who don't have to make a Robotics to get Stargate units. Sure there is one additional structure for each tier (Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core) but there is almost little variation. This, combined with the tech lab add-on allows Terran to tech incredibly fast. That is a problem, because if any of the Terran units tech are any stronger then they are now, then Terran would just build them off one base an win.
So that is why we get things like the 1-1-1 from Terran, combining the mineral only Marines with gas intensive powerful tech units (Banshees and Tanks). If you improve the power of the Banshee, Tank, Thor, or even the Battlecruiser without counter balancing the Marine, you risk one base timings becoming too powerful.
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. Do you remember that BW game where the terran tech tree was pretty much identical? I mean, I can agree that the marine is perhaps a little too powerful (and multi-purpose, which is where the problem lies), but the tech tree has no problem that I can see.
Something simple, like reducing Marine HP by 5, but having Combat shields give +15 might allow Tanks to get the buff necessary to make Mech viable while not making the 1-1-1 imbalanced or destroying Bio play. And something would probably need to be done with the Viper too... Alternatively, Blizzard could slow the Terran tech tree, but that would hurt Bio players because they need access to Medivacs relatively quickly and would be a much bigger change.
These are huge changes that could never work. The easiest way to bypass the marine problem is to give terran players more early options for defense (I know this sounds crazy, but the problem is that marines + bunkers counter everything that can be thrown at them).
On August 26 2013 07:30 RedMosquito wrote: As a viewer, it gets really tiresome and boring watching bio being utilized every game by Terran. Bio every once and a while would be cool. But every game is not. Viewers want to see creativity and variety.
The real design flaw i think is that bio + good micro can be used every game in every matchup. Other unit combinations do not offer the speed, power, and harassment potential that MMM has. Not to mention MMM is also cheap.
I think originally the designers figured that bio's weakness would be its fragility. Every unit is supposed to have some kind of weakness or difficulty associated with it. Pro level micro and healing support negate these weaknesses.
Blizzard for whatever reason, seems to think that high tech units need to be massive A-move units and their only weakness is being slow.
Imagine if Reapers cost 25-25, had 6 range, did 6x2 to everything per shot, built in only 28 seconds (it is 45 now and Marines are 25), could be still Reactored and retained their self-heal. But Blizzard made a requirement that you had to have a Fusion Core built to build them.
They'd be an awesome late game replacement to the Marine that wouldn't require Medivacs for healing or traversing cliffs. High tech units don't need to be massive powerhouses or expensive spell casters. They could small speedy units like that. And that would make SC2 so much better.
That is how Blizzard can make SC2 more exciting.
Did you just say it would be exciting to change the reaper into an overpowered lategame marine? How is that more exciting than seeing marines?
Again, the problem with terran is not that the high tech units are expensive and slow. That's how they were in BW...there wasn't a problem there. The problem in SC2 is that it's impossible to control space as well because tanks, widow mines, and planetaries don't do their jobs exceptionally well. Add that to a host of other general design issues, and there's no way to make static defense powerful yet not overpowered. So...we're in kind of a quandary.
But still, the problem isn't just the marine and how good the marine is lategame, but with how terran controls space.
On August 26 2013 07:30 RedMosquito wrote: As a viewer, it gets really tiresome and boring watching bio being utilized every game by Terran. Bio every once and a while would be cool. But every game is not. Viewers want to see creativity and variety.
The real design flaw i think is that bio + good micro can be used every game in every matchup. Other unit combinations do not offer the speed, power, and harassment potential that MMM has. Not to mention MMM is also cheap.
I think originally the designers figured that bio's weakness would be its fragility. Every unit is supposed to have some kind of weakness or difficulty associated with it. Pro level micro and healing support negate these weaknesses.
Blizzard for whatever reason, seems to think that high tech units need to be massive A-move units and their only weakness is being slow.
Imagine if Reapers cost 25-25, had 6 range, did 6x2 to everything per shot, built in only 28 seconds (it is 45 now and Marines are 25), could be still Reactored and retained their self-heal. But Blizzard made a requirement that you had to have a Fusion Core built to build them.
They'd be an awesome late game replacement to the Marine that wouldn't require Medivacs. High tech units don't need to be massive powerhouses or expensive spell casters. They could small speedy units like that. And that would make SC2 so much better.
I don´t know if I agree with your reaper Idea, but I totally support your point on the high tech units. High Tech units should be about unique abilities and Blizzard went the right direction with the viper here, which is fragile but offers strong, gamedeciding spells. I think the raven was intended to be of that kind too, but its spells are..... well not that gamedeciding.
On August 26 2013 09:28 SC2John wrote:
These are huge changes that could never work. The easiest way to bypass the marine problem is to give terran players more early options for defense (I know this sounds crazy, but the problem is that marines + bunkers counter everything that can be thrown at them).
I want to be clear that I'm just throwing out ideas, just some examples to illustrate my point.
I also don't think we should look to BW for design ideas. BW was a great game, but late game tech units could be something other than a spell caster or massive high damage high health unit.
Blizzard wants dynamic game play that doesn't revolve around the deathball, but the way they built the high tech units in this games says the opposite. So what do they do? They nerf the high tech units into the ground, or offer ridiculously strong counters (the Viper) that discourage people using them.
On August 26 2013 09:09 BronzeKnee wrote: The power of the Marine and the way the Terran tech tree is designed is the problem. Sometimes I wish instead of nerfing the Tank (when it did 60 damage to everything) Blizzard had nerfed the Marine. Imagine how much different SC2 would be today...
Anyway, the first issue is the Marine. The Marine is the big damage for Bio players, but it only costs minerals. This isn't an issue for Bio players. But it is for Mech players because Blizzard has to balance Terran as whole, and nothing stops Terran players from combining Marines with the big damage dealers from the Factory (Tanks) and the Starport (Banshees). Hence, we got the 1-1-1 dominating TvP and TvT for a time. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the Terran tech tree.
The Terran tech tree doesn't branch the way the Protoss or Zerg tech tree does. It goes Bio-Mech-Air, every time. Compare that to Protoss who don't have to make a Robotics to get Stargate units. Sure there is one additional structure for each tier (Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core) but there is almost little variation. This, combined with the tech lab add-on allows Terran to tech incredibly fast. That is a problem, because if any of the Terran units tech are any stronger then they are now, then Terran would just build them off one base an win.
So that is why we get things like the 1-1-1 from Terran, combining the mineral only Marines with gas intensive powerful tech units (Banshees and Tanks). If you improve the power of the Banshee, Tank, Thor, or even the Battlecruiser without counter balancing the Marine, you risk one base timings becoming too powerful.
Something simple, like reducing Marine HP by 5, but having Combat shields give +15 might allow Tanks to get the buff necessary to make Mech viable while not making the 1-1-1 imbalanced or destroying Bio play. And something would probably need to be done with the Viper too... Alternatively, Blizzard could slow the Terran tech tree, but that would hurt Bio players because they need access to Medivacs relatively quickly and would be a much bigger change.
While reading this I had the voice of Stan in American Dad in my head telling me all this super fast and super excited!
The thing is, making bio less strong doesn't help because mech is usually not a good option for terran. It's not as good on its own to take on everything the other races can throw at it, else it would be played much more often! Think about it: if mech can stand against toss and zerg with small adjustment to unit composition, bio would dominate these races because it is so much better than mech!
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.
On August 26 2013 09:09 BronzeKnee wrote: The power of the Marine and the way the Terran tech tree is designed is the problem. Sometimes I wish instead of nerfing the Tank (when it did 60 damage to everything) Blizzard had nerfed the Marine. Imagine how much different SC2 would be today...
Anyway, the first issue is the Marine. The Marine is the big damage for Bio players, but it only costs minerals. This isn't an issue for Bio players. But it is for Mech players because Blizzard has to balance Terran as whole, and nothing stops Terran players from combining Marines with the big damage dealers from the Factory (Tanks) and the Starport (Banshees). Hence, we got the 1-1-1 dominating TvP and TvT for a time. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the Terran tech tree.
The Terran tech tree doesn't branch the way the Protoss or Zerg tech tree does. It goes Bio-Mech-Air, every time. Compare that to Protoss who don't have to make a Robotics to get Stargate units. Sure there is one additional structure for each tier (Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core) but there is almost little variation. This, combined with the tech lab add-on allows Terran to tech incredibly fast. That is a problem, because if any of the Terran units tech are any stronger then they are now, then Terran would just build them off one base an win.
So that is why we get things like the 1-1-1 from Terran, combining the mineral only Marines with gas intensive powerful tech units (Banshees and Tanks). If you improve the power of the Banshee, Tank, Thor, or even the Battlecruiser without counter balancing the Marine, you risk one base timings becoming too powerful.
Something simple, like reducing Marine HP by 5, but having Combat shields give +15 might allow Tanks to get the buff necessary to make Mech viable while not making the 1-1-1 imbalanced or destroying Bio play. And something would probably need to be done with the Viper too... Alternatively, Blizzard could slow the Terran tech tree, but that would hurt Bio players because they need access to Medivacs relatively quickly and would be a much bigger change.
While reading this I had the voice of Stan in American Dad in my head telling me all this super fast and super excited!
The thing is, making bio less strong doesn't help because mech is usually not a good option for terran. It's not as good on its own to take on everything the other races can throw at it, else it would be played much more often! Think about it: if mech can stand against toss and zerg with small adjustment to unit composition, bio would dominate these races because it is so much better than mech!
American Dad is my favorite show, but Roger is my favorite character. So please imagine Roger saying this, in a sarcastic and condescending tone:
You're getting a punch. Your post contradicts itself, perhaps because of a language barrier because you're German. You state that Mech isn't good, and making Bio less strong doesn't help. Then you conclude that making make stronger wouldn't help because Bio is better than Mech.
But if we made Bio weaker (or at least the Marine slightly weaker when not upgraded) and Mech stronger, what happens? Then Mech can stand against the other races, and Bio wouldn't dominate them because Bio wouldn't be so much better than Mech?
It doesn't take a genius Klaus to understand this.
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.
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.
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 does not mean you have nothing to add.
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 doesn't need to tell us that, and if he doesn't like the discussion, then he simply needs to move on.
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.
Umm... Nice try. If you read why I brought this topic up, then you would know that this is more than based on a tournament win. Btw, I am a Bomber/Polt fan, so I have nothing against them. But I really wanted Jaedong to win for storyline sake.
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 does not mean you have nothing to add.
If you disagree, then you should state why. Just saying that you don't like something really says nothing other than the person's central opinion. All-in-all, I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, but I am more baffled if people say, "you're wrong" without telling me why.
On August 26 2013 09:09 BronzeKnee wrote: The power of the Marine and the way the Terran tech tree is designed is the problem. Sometimes I wish instead of nerfing the Tank (when it did 60 damage to everything) Blizzard had nerfed the Marine. Imagine how much different SC2 would be today...
Anyway, the first issue is the Marine. The Marine is the big damage for Bio players, but it only costs minerals. This isn't an issue for Bio players. But it is for Mech players because Blizzard has to balance Terran as whole, and nothing stops Terran players from combining Marines with the big damage dealers from the Factory (Tanks) and the Starport (Banshees). Hence, we got the 1-1-1 dominating TvP and TvT for a time. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the Terran tech tree.
The Terran tech tree doesn't branch the way the Protoss or Zerg tech tree does. It goes Bio-Mech-Air, every time. Compare that to Protoss who don't have to make a Robotics to get Stargate units. Sure there is one additional structure for each tier (Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core) but there is almost little variation. This, combined with the tech lab add-on allows Terran to tech incredibly fast. That is a problem, because if any of the Terran units tech are any stronger then they are now, then Terran would just build them off one base an win.
So that is why we get things like the 1-1-1 from Terran, combining the mineral only Marines with gas intensive powerful tech units (Banshees and Tanks). If you improve the power of the Banshee, Tank, Thor, or even the Battlecruiser without counter balancing the Marine, you risk one base timings becoming too powerful.
Something simple, like reducing Marine HP by 5, but having Combat shields give +15 might allow Tanks to get the buff necessary to make Mech viable while not making the 1-1-1 imbalanced or destroying Bio play. And something would probably need to be done with the Viper too... Alternatively, Blizzard could slow the Terran tech tree, but that would hurt Bio players because they need access to Medivacs relatively quickly and would be a much bigger change.
While reading this I had the voice of Stan in American Dad in my head telling me all this super fast and super excited!
The thing is, making bio less strong doesn't help because mech is usually not a good option for terran. It's not as good on its own to take on everything the other races can throw at it, else it would be played much more often! Think about it: if mech can stand against toss and zerg with small adjustment to unit composition, bio would dominate these races because it is so much better than mech!
American Dad is my favorite show, but Roger is my favorite character. So please imagine Roger saying this, in a sarcastic and condescending tone:
You're getting a punch. Your post contradicts itself, perhaps because of a language barrier because your German. You state that Mech isn't good, and making Bio less strong doesn't help. Then you conclude that making make stronger wouldn't help because Bio is better than Mech.
But if we made Bio weaker (or the Marine slightly weaker when not upgraded) and Mech stronger, what happens?
It doesn't take a genius Klaus to understand this.
My name is not Klaus, but thanks anyway What happens in PvT is that marines get chopped to pieces by zealots and fried by stalkers in the first minutes. Protoss is already really hard to attack early on because of the mothership core. with weaker marines they are even mroe safe and can play greedier while you need to be extra careful since your first units need to be marines. Isn't the thing with mech that you need to have 100 supply of it to be able to take a fight to the opponent? You will have to change that somehow... I guess that would take some really big adjustments to the game.
TvZ... hmm... might help actually but again, you are more vulnerable early game.
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.
On August 26 2013 09:09 BronzeKnee wrote: The power of the Marine and the way the Terran tech tree is designed is the problem. Sometimes I wish instead of nerfing the Tank (when it did 60 damage to everything) Blizzard had nerfed the Marine. Imagine how much different SC2 would be today...
Anyway, the first issue is the Marine. The Marine is the big damage for Bio players, but it only costs minerals. This isn't an issue for Bio players. But it is for Mech players because Blizzard has to balance Terran as whole, and nothing stops Terran players from combining Marines with the big damage dealers from the Factory (Tanks) and the Starport (Banshees). Hence, we got the 1-1-1 dominating TvP and TvT for a time. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the Terran tech tree.
The Terran tech tree doesn't branch the way the Protoss or Zerg tech tree does. It goes Bio-Mech-Air, every time. Compare that to Protoss who don't have to make a Robotics to get Stargate units. Sure there is one additional structure for each tier (Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core) but there is almost little variation. This, combined with the tech lab add-on allows Terran to tech incredibly fast. That is a problem, because if any of the Terran units tech are any stronger then they are now, then Terran would just build them off one base an win.
So that is why we get things like the 1-1-1 from Terran, combining the mineral only Marines with gas intensive powerful tech units (Banshees and Tanks). If you improve the power of the Banshee, Tank, Thor, or even the Battlecruiser without counter balancing the Marine, you risk one base timings becoming too powerful.
Something simple, like reducing Marine HP by 5, but having Combat shields give +15 might allow Tanks to get the buff necessary to make Mech viable while not making the 1-1-1 imbalanced or destroying Bio play. And something would probably need to be done with the Viper too... Alternatively, Blizzard could slow the Terran tech tree, but that would hurt Bio players because they need access to Medivacs relatively quickly and would be a much bigger change.
While reading this I had the voice of Stan in American Dad in my head telling me all this super fast and super excited!
The thing is, making bio less strong doesn't help because mech is usually not a good option for terran. It's not as good on its own to take on everything the other races can throw at it, else it would be played much more often! Think about it: if mech can stand against toss and zerg with small adjustment to unit composition, bio would dominate these races because it is so much better than mech!
American Dad is my favorite show, but Roger is my favorite character. So please imagine Roger saying this, in a sarcastic and condescending tone:
You're getting a punch. Your post contradicts itself, perhaps because of a language barrier because your German. You state that Mech isn't good, and making Bio less strong doesn't help. Then you conclude that making make stronger wouldn't help because Bio is better than Mech.
But if we made Bio weaker (or the Marine slightly weaker when not upgraded) and Mech stronger, what happens?
It doesn't take a genius Klaus to understand this.
My name is not Klaus, but thanks anyway What happens in PvT is that marines get chopped to pieces by zealots and fried by stalkers in the first minutes. Protoss is already really hard to attack early on because of the mothership core. with weaker marines they are even mroe safe and can play greedier while you need to be extra careful since your first units need to be marines. Isn't the thing with mech that you need to have 100 supply of it to be able to take a fight to the opponent? You will have to change that somehow... I guess that would take some really big adjustments to the game.
TvZ... hmm... might help actually but again, you are more vulnerable early game.
Klaus is the fish in American Dad that Roger makes fun of... obviously not a fan, it just happened to work out that you are German. You're getting another punch.
You're right about being extra careful with Marines, but you can't just make Mech units better, or else one base timings get out of control because Terran can tech so quick.
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.
Honestly, I don't think you need to here if you think this is a balance discussion (as a spectator I want to see more than Bio). Blizzard isn't going to listen us, and we are just having fun with a discussion.
You can leave now, and go back to your extremely productive and important threads on Team Liquid where people don't whine.
With very linear nature of Terran production and the relative easy to counter nature of Mech by Zerg/Toss it is actually a very true statement to say that Terran is inflexible from a meta-game point of view.
I, personally, would love a tank damage buff with an added in slower rate of fire but I am not sure if Blizzard is willing to even test that with the public.
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.
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 08:08 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.
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 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 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.
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 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...
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
Okie dokie. Why don't you mention why I am wrong? I don't mind if people tell me WHY I am "retardedly simplistic" (because some people on this thread and other ones have refuted some of my points), but saying such thing without elaboration doesn't say much about me.
Next, I think you have misunderstood what I meant by deathball. That's the primary Protoss's option against Terran. If there is any other option that Protoss can pull, let me know!
Finally, you want to talk about BW? Well, guess what? At least, Terran had to change up their tech against different races and not rely on the same composition.
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.
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 decide 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...
But I just want to build air units out of the starport. Why can't I? You just want to build units out of the factory, like tons of siege tanks. Why can't I demand to build only air units and have it be viable? They should make the air units viable and interesting to mirco.
You see how these discussions are slightly silly. It is just people demanding to play in a specific fashion that they would find interesting. I can just as easily demand to play skytoss or no colossi protoss without stalkers and demand it be viable because I feel it would be more exciting that the current way the game is played. It doesn't mean I am right.
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
Okie dokie. Why don't you mention why I am wrong? I don't mind if people tell me WHY I am "retardedly simplistic" (because some people on this thread and other ones have refuted some of my points), but saying such thing without elaboration doesn't say much about me.
Finally, I think you have misunderstood what I meant by deathball. That's the primary Protoss's option against Terran. If there is any other option that Protoss can pull, let me know!
He means the term "death ball" is overly simplistic, since it is normally made up of every protoss ground unit and high templar scattered around the map in defensive positions. You could also say that MMM is a deathball, because they all travel together and fit on one screen.
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.
I dunno why people are trying to think this is a balance QQ, it's not. I'm Terran and I'm totally bored of TvZ lately, just endless rallies of marines and mines for the most part, and the zerg either stops it or doesn't. So much so that I sometimes even cheer for the zerg player to beat it, and considering my long hatred of everything zerg, this is crazy. I just don't like the matchup at the moment, even though terran totally dominates it at the top level, It's really boring. I highly disagree with the point about mech being technically stronger, it's not the case, zerg totally dominates mech, it has so many hard counters for mech it's just not funny. Mech imo is actually FAR stronger vs protoss than vs zerg, although I dunno how strong it actually is since no one uses it apart from a couple of Euro pros. TvT is indeed a beautiful matchup, and it shows the potential of the terran race with how many interesting units they can make, openings etc, but we're not exactly seeing the same interesting stuff in other matchups. TvP is bland, but i could accept it if tvz was more interesting.
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.
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 decide 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...
But I just want to build air units out of the starport. Why can't I? You just want to build units out of the factory, like tons of siege tanks. Why can't I demand to build only air units and have it be viable? They should make the air units viable and interesting to mirco.
You see how these discussions are slightly silly. It is just people demanding to play in a specific fashion that they would find interesting. I can just as easily demand to play skytoss or no colossi protoss without stalkers and demand it be viable because I feel it would be more exciting that the current way the game is played. It doesn't mean I am right.
You're missing the point here and splitting hairs. Mech isn't some silly idea that a few people are trying to make work. Heck, Blizzard was trying to make it work!
Furthermore, you're misunderstanding the game design that Blizzard created when developing Terran. Just look at the how the upgrades are structured. Protoss ground units share upgrades. Terran has a different set of upgrades for Bio and Mech. They've also made well rounded units for both tech trees, that can handle a variety of situations. This is unlike the other races. If you only build Robotics units, you'll lack a cheap quick harass unit (Hellions) and anti-air (Thors) that Mech provides. In theory, Mech can cover all the bases, and you don't need Bio, and vice versa. Which is why in WOL people floated their Barracks if they went Mech or their Factory if they went Bio.
Blizzard intentionally designed the game like this. But then they didn't make it work.
It is well established that Siege Tanks in combination with Thors, Hellbats and Medivacs offers a completely different form of play than Marines in combination with Marauders, Medivacs, Mines/Vikings and Ghost do. Neither one is inherently better than the other in terms of game design. However one currently works well, while one does not. So, the problem isn't just that Factory only units aren't viable, it is that Barracks only units are viable.
And thus, I could just as easily reverse your argument against you, as it is just people demanding to play in a specific fashion that they would find interesting. I can just as easily demand that Bio should be the only form of play and demand other forms be not viable because I feel it is more exciting now than the way the game could be played. It doesn't mean I am right either. But that line of logic does mean I am correct.
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.
I dunno why people are trying to think this is a balance QQ, it's not. I'm Terran and I'm totally bored of TvZ lately, just endless rallies of marines and mines for the most part, and the zerg either stops it or doesn't. So much so that I sometimes even cheer for the zerg player to beat it, and considering my long hatred of everything zerg, this is crazy. I just don't like the matchup at the moment, even though terran totally dominates it at the top level, It's really boring. I highly disagree with the point about mech being technically stronger, it's not the case, zerg totally dominates mech, it has so many hard counters for mech it's just not funny. Mech imo is actually FAR stronger vs protoss than vs zerg, although I dunno how strong it actually is since no one uses it apart from a couple of Euro pros. TvT is indeed a beautiful matchup, and it shows the potential of the terran race with how many interesting units they can make, openings etc, but we're not exactly seeing the same interesting stuff in other matchups. TvP is bland, but i could accept it if tvz was more interesting.
Couldn't agree more with this post. I have never played Zerg (only Terran and Protoss) but I was actually cheering for the Zerg players at the WCS Finals (Scarlett and JD), not because I am a fan of the players (well I guess to some extent I am) but mainly because I wanted to see Marine/Mine lose. Almost every TvZ I watch is Marine/Mine, almost no exceptions, it's just as bad as MMMVG only in TvP. Watching the same compositions clash every game with the only difference being slightly different results is just silly. It makes me feel like SC2 is not really a strategy game since the strategy is pre-determined before every match (MMMVG vs P, Marine/Mine vs. Z) and it's basically just a test of how well you can execute that strategy.
Innovation was doing the exact same build almost every game for months (in TvZ), where is the "strategy" part in that? It's just execution, no strategic thinking involved at all.
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.
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 decide 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...
But I just want to build air units out of the starport. Why can't I? You just want to build units out of the factory, like tons of siege tanks. Why can't I demand to build only air units and have it be viable? They should make the air units viable and interesting to mirco.
You see how these discussions are slightly silly. It is just people demanding to play in a specific fashion that they would find interesting. I can just as easily demand to play skytoss or no colossi protoss without stalkers and demand it be viable because I feel it would be more exciting that the current way the game is played. It doesn't mean I am right.
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
Okie dokie. Why don't you mention why I am wrong? I don't mind if people tell me WHY I am "retardedly simplistic" (because some people on this thread and other ones have refuted some of my points), but saying such thing without elaboration doesn't say much about me.
Finally, I think you have misunderstood what I meant by deathball. That's the primary Protoss's option against Terran. If there is any other option that Protoss can pull, let me know!
He means the term "death ball" is overly simplistic, since it is normally made up of every protoss ground unit and high templar scattered around the map in defensive positions. You could also say that MMM is a deathball, because they all travel together and fit on one screen.
Ah, okay. My bad on that part.
Yes, you're right that Blizzard can't simply just change the design just because we demand it. However, I will stretch this topic a bit. If we look at LoL or DoTA, we see different picks (although we do see recurring heroes/champions). These different picks do provide a different flavor to the overall game. The only difference we can see in every SC2 game based on the match-up is how well the player uses the units but not the composition itself. If you are a devoted hardcore SC2 fan, then that game would be interesting to you. However, if you are at least somewhat of a casual observer like I am, it gets really boring because you can already predict what the players will be go for.
I am not asking for Blizzard to make one composition replace the other. I am arguing for Blizzard to look at the bigger picture. The team refuses to change Bio or other Terran tools because they say how that Bio keeps the game fun. Yes, it does keep the pace of the game intense. At the same time, pure reliance on bio makes the game extremely stale because it's easily expected.
I have to agree with the OP, and I think its really starting to affect the image of terran players. When all they really do is spam marine/marauder in all match-ups, its harder and harder to appreciate the nuances in the gameplay, and I say this as a terran player.
WOL terran was first overpowered but then underpowered, but it felt always appreciated as a race that had the best match-ups from a viewer POV. With HOTS they improved the other mirrors, PvZ has a crapload of variety yet terran match-ups stayed the same or in the case of TvZ became a pretty miserable viewing experience where its the same conga line every single game.
Who will be around 3 years from now to watch marine spam? I certainly hope we don't have to wait until LOTV to change things.
I dunno why people are trying to think this is a balance QQ, it's not. I'm Terran and I'm totally bored of TvZ lately, just endless rallies of marines and mines for the most part, and the zerg either stops it or doesn't. So much so that I sometimes even cheer for the zerg player to beat it, and considering my long hatred of everything zerg, this is crazy. I just don't like the matchup at the moment, even though terran totally dominates it at the top level, It's really boring. I highly disagree with the point about mech being technically stronger, it's not the case, zerg totally dominates mech, it has so many hard counters for mech it's just not funny. Mech imo is actually FAR stronger vs protoss than vs zerg, although I dunno how strong it actually is since no one uses it apart from a couple of Euro pros.
The biggest issue for mech, both in TvP and TvZ is that it's on a timer. If you cannot kill your opponent or get WAY ahead at some point early in the game, you cannot win the lategame. And that's the opposite of how mech SHOULD play. Not to mention that mech is only powerful in the lategame, which again contradicts the whole nature of how mech was designed in SC2.
On August 26 2013 12:02 BronzeKnee wrote: Blizzard intentionally designed the game like this. But then they didn't make it work.
It is well established that Siege Tanks in combination with Thors, Hellbats and Medivacs offers a completely different form of play than Marines in combination with Marauders, Medivacs, Mines/Vikings and Ghost do. Neither one is inherently better than the other in terms of game design. However one currently works well, while one does not. So, the problem isn't just that Factory only units aren't viable, it is that Barracks only units are viable.
Wat?
Marine/marauder is WAY the hell better in terms of game design (although we can all admit that the marauder is redundant). The problem is NOT that factory units aren't viable option because bio is so good; it's that if bio weren't as good, terran as a race would suck balls. Mech is terribly designed in SC2, that's a fact.
However, again, I definitely agree that bio is too strong for its own good. I honestly think that the old hellbats were good for the game and steered things in a mech direction. Granted, they were perhaps too powerful, but the way Blizzard hastily patched them was ugly and killed a lot of the progress we had made in the HotS meta. Not happy about that one. Mech needs a good, multi-purpose unit (like the marine) in order to make mech more viable. Interestingly, the original hellbat and the warhound filled this role, but both had absolutely terrible stats and perhaps boring mechanics. As much as people hated the warhound, I think Blizzard was actually taking a step in the right direction at the time.
EPT
. As a Terran player I agree, they should make more or somehow improve without making mech units imba (warhound and hellbat (pre nerf) ) Maybe for teh next expansion they need to remove the some units and add newer ones, like the reaper for example, its only really useful for that early scout or 2 with 4 hellions for early presssure, after 6 minutes its useless unless you mass them ..... maybe bring back the science vessel and remove the raven i reckon that would strenghten mech considerably. Or like hellions make some mech unit that can transform between two modes which have drastically different tactics involved. 
