[D] Terran, TvP and game-design - Page 11

On October 02 2011 18:04 Big J wrote:
So what's the conclusion? In the OP you write that you don't know what can be done about it, and you don't think that there will be something done (while I do believe that HotS will bring a new mech unit, or at least change Mech in a way)

Buff the Tanks damage? - it would break current TvT (only Mech viable then) and TvZ (Roaches would become useless, Ultras would go from useless to unuseable, Infestors would suffer extremly)
Buff the Tanks splash? - again TvT (only Mech viable then) and TvZ (no more zerglings, banelings, roaches)
Buff the Tanks HP? - might not turn out too imbalanced, though it would definatly be a big buff against biobased compositions in TvT (no more stimming into "thin" tanklines) and TvZ (less risk of getting sniped by mutas, banelings would be shot more often in combats...); it also wouldn't really help a lot vs P in my eyes
Spidermines on Hellions? - they already grant mapcontrol in TvZ; also zerg has no unit to kill spidermines until T3 and don't forget, overlords aren't detectors anymore, so spidermines would naturally be stronger against Zerg than in BW; (also you couldn't punish a terran anymore for not sieging, because you would permanently charge into spidermines... not to mention how freaking imba reactored spidermines of a unit that already fights well would be)
buff Thors? - No! Mass Thor is already so extremly strong, that zerg can't deal with it in higher amounts... Also it would break your Tankline philosophy, because at some point you really wouldn't care to build Tanks anymore, because Thor/Hellion is just better

Terran resolves around Marines now, a unit that is so fundamentally and extremly overpowered, that everything else has to suffer. wait for HotS!

On October 01 2011 06:16 Thorzain wrote:
I feel that TvP IS really micro intensive. EMP everything, move your units out of storms, focus fire individual colossi with vikings and kite zealots if he's zealot heavy. And while you're kiting zealots you have to move back your ghosts so that they dont all get killed in the blink of an eye. All these things at the same time. It's freaking hard if you ask me!

On October 02 2011 18:43 YosHGo wrote:


Did you read an interview with Browder ? He says that Terran is now pretty much finished.. They will be maybe tweaking some units but adding of new units will come down to zergs and tosses only (for toss mainly because of lack of cheesy variety in early game apparently - thats what he said)... Terran is flexible as shit already and you would like to have an other unit.. pfffffffffffffff

On October 02 2011 18:44 Raiznhell wrote:


It certainly IS micro intensive but I believe the meaning of his post is Marine Marauder does not feel Terran at all and i agree with the OP 100%

Look through all my posts and you'll see like 90% of them are me whining for my Mech TvP back as I am absolutely disgusted with the Marauder and now having to start playing Bio all the time. I don't feel anything like Terran when I make the Marauder.

Honestly changes I feel that could help make Mech useful in TvP again would be to:

1. Bring the hellions base damage to 10 and double the fire rate but remove the pre-igniter upgrade (helps to deal with early immortals)

2. Spider Mines

3. Goliaths instead of Vikings although let the Goliaths use air Damage against Collosus instead of ground damage.

4. Make the Siege Tanks damage 35+20 vs armored (allows them to 3 shot unupgraded stalkers at the start to help defend close position 4 gates.)
-Also make it 2 supply again and 100 gas
-A huge problem with Mech is that you can only ever have 2/3 the amount of tanks you could in BW which sucks regardless of smart fire.
-Also the fact that tanks burn so much gas with the extra 25 with that removed you could build another tank for every 4 you make bringing out earlier pushes so toss doesn't have the map by the time you get a decent push timing.

And removing the Thor and marauder. (dunno how well thors would fit in with goliaths)

On October 02 2011 18:57 sunman1g wrote:
god if you had to mech in all 3 match ups i'd rather play another game.


i do not understand people loving mech so much.
clearly not hardcore terran players...

TvT is already going in that direction.
in TvZ you can go marine/tank or almost pure mech with ghosts later on.

if TvP was marine/tank or any bullshit like that i'd seriously quit playing/watching starcraft.
i like MMM+V+G play vs P and I think its fun to watch.

as thorzain stated it's also pretty hard to micro

On October 02 2011 19:04 Big J wrote:


do you have a link to that interview? Terran is not flexible as ***. Marines are!





You have any clue about balancing? Increasing hellion damage to 10 and doubling the fire rate, so it has Marine like dps against nonlight and stimmed marine like dps against light but with splash and then add spidermines to them while it still remains the most mobile ground unit in the game that doesn't cost gas and can be reactored???
Remove vikings so that Terran has no Air to Air unit?
Make tanks even better/cheaper, to further strengthen 1-1-1
Remove the marauder so that you can make sure bio is unplayable in most scenarios, because you don't like it?

Go play broodwar, if you want to play Mech instead of having a variety of strategies!

On October 02 2011 19:11 Raiznhell wrote:


You don't have any clue about balance either. And the problem with SC2 is no variety...you HAVE to marauder spam or you lose in TvP. Also why would you need an Air to Air when you already have amazing Ground to Air?

On October 01 2011 06:42 GinDo wrote:


That Idea about having to crush zerg before the 10 min mark is total b.s. Its a fib told by qqers. Terran can hold their own against Zerg in a long macro game. That is until BL infestor comes out. Then its gg. But thats around the 25 min mark.

On October 02 2011 10:54 ledarsi wrote:
One of the better OP's I have read in this forum, exactly parallels my thinking on a variety of levels. Also, I am sure I am not alone in this. More people than OP, PredY, and myself have this understanding of the game.

I would like to add a few points however. Map control being the most important of them. I feel that it is simply wrong the way the current SC2 system evaluates the meaning of "map control." Right here in the TL strategy forum you will read people say things like "only one person can have map control at a time" and might even claim such a thing is "obvious." This is preposterous. Map control is simply control of areas of the map. If you control the ENTIRE map, then I suppose you have map control and the other player cannot, but that is an unusual edge case. Most of the time you should have control of some areas, and your opponent should have control of other areas.

Every race needs the tools for strong positional play. Abilities like spider mines, units like lurkers. Abilities and effects that can give a strong local advantage such as dark swarm (also positional). This is very lacking in Starcraft 2 at the moment, and creates these extremely fast, aggressive, low-tech games where defensive, reactive play is either disincentivized or purely unnecessary. All you get are better tools to aggress against the enemy army directly, which you could do equally well with MORE UNITS, having the added advantage of hitting sooner. In the event that both players play defensively, all you get is two blobs smashing into one another to decide the winner. Silly.

Localization and positional play mean the player that splits their army up effectively has a huge combat advantage. Rather than having two armies of half strength, you have two groups which significantly outperform the blob you would get if you balled them together. Divide again to amplify the effect further, down to the minimum effective combat group size determined by your opponent's force distribution.

Blizzard is almost thinking like a noob in that they are very focused on unit composition and not on tactical play- they assume you have 'an army.' This is further evidenced by their treatment of unit supply costs. Hydralisks, roaches, ultras, siege tanks, immortals, thors, colossi, motherships, all have huge supply costs to justify big 'cool' units. Starcraft would, like most strategy games, be much stronger with more units (more pieces) than with bigger arbitrary stats ("stronger" pieces, which makes no sense since strength is relative). The improved pathing and unit AI also means units blob up more effectively, which means more positional play elements should be added to incentivize splitting forces up. Splash damage is the idiot's solution because... micro, or counter to nullify splash damage dealing unit. Back to "unit composition is king" thinking.