|
On October 03 2011 04:14 PredY wrote:
there's been some threads on the warpgate mechanic recently so i didn't really want to talk too much about it, but it's definately an issue. but for that we're gonna have to wait for HoTS and see what happens. but as you said i'd love if warpgates weren't the ideal option, rather have gateways as the main production facility + a few warpgates to warpin DTs to harass or HTs to faraway expo so you can defend. maybe allow as many warpgates as you have nexi? obviously rebalancing gateway units would be necessary t_t
Warpgate mechanic and forcefield is definitely destroying the game. It makes map balance useless. Also the key reason of why Protoss unit sucks. The power of Protoss rely on the timing i.e. cheese  With the warp mechanic and ff skill, even a slightly buff of Protoss gateway unit would become a nightmare of the other two races. So good BW protoss players just cant do their normal play and are forced to play cheese which is kind of really really sad.
|
On October 03 2011 03:39 ledarsi wrote:
The problem with warp gate should be obvious to anyone. Compare the Warp Gate and the Gateway. The warp gate has a shorter cooldown than the gateway has build time, and in addition allows the protoss to warp in their units anywhere.
The correct way to balance warp gate would be to have the warp gate cooldown be longer than the time needed by a gateway to construct the same unit. However, you may warp in that unit anywhere. This means going for the fast warp gate can be used offensively, however if you continue to aggress ineffectively the defending protoss building out of gateways will slowly build a bigger army. Strategy games are about tradeoffs, and warp gate isn't one. Warp gates are strictly dominant over gateways.
Their pitiful attempt to balance this strict dominance was to just give it a MASSIVE build time, which just hurts my brain as to what they could possibly be thinking.
The total lack of positional play making the game blob warz is a very astute comment. Blizzard has put in so many mechanics to discourage positional play because they think it is "static" and "boring." They understand nothing.
great post.
As a terran I would love to see a reworking of Protoss to their role of having the 'stronger' units, but warpgates make this impossible. Your suggestion is an interesting fix without completely breaking the game. But then again if it happened, Protoss units might require buffs.
It's a shame none of these recommendations have any chance of ever happening, a reexamining of warpgate mechanics, siege tank damage, etc. I wouldn't hold my breath for HotS to be some revolutionary game-changer as many are hoping. But I hope I myself am proven wrong
|
On October 01 2011 05:49 PredY wrote:
The thing with TvP is that it doesn't feel terran-ish at all, if i wanted to make a lot of T1 units i'd play zerg!
This! I agree completely.
Been saying this since beta, fuck bio man, Its not terran at all, its like terran wearing a zerg hat yelling "look at me! I'm mobile and give you map control but I will lose in properly controlled max engagements so you better do some damage before then!"
Its absolutely fucking retarded.
Proposed solution (HoTS) Remove marauder, replace with firebat, buff tanks (with 25 less gas and 2 supply cost, and/or a damage buff) give hellions mines or just replace that hotwheel flame thrower with the vulture.
|
On October 03 2011 03:39 ledarsi wrote:
The problem with warp gate should be obvious to anyone. Compare the Warp Gate and the Gateway. The warp gate has a shorter cooldown than the gateway has build time, and in addition allows the protoss to warp in their units anywhere.
The correct way to balance warp gate would be to have the warp gate cooldown be longer than the time needed by a gateway to construct the same unit. However, you may warp in that unit anywhere. This means going for the fast warp gate can be used offensively, however if you continue to aggress ineffectively the defending protoss building out of gateways will slowly build a bigger army. Strategy games are about tradeoffs, and warp gate isn't one. Warp gates are strictly dominant over gateways.
Their pitiful attempt to balance this strict dominance was to just give it a MASSIVE build time, which just hurts my brain as to what they could possibly be thinking.
The total lack of positional play making the game blob warz is a very astute comment. Blizzard has put in so many mechanics to discourage positional play because they think it is "static" and "boring." They understand nothing.
Exactly. Warpgate should be used as defense and harass not offense. It's kind of ridiculous that it turns all your minerals to army...and... in your opponent's base. This is exactly the ideal goal of a good strategy for each race: make all your minerals to army and quickly go to your opponent base before time XXX.
From a time-value point, units value are becoming less and less in the time frame. i.e. the 3 marine from 2 rax in 3:30 is like the value of 30 marines in 12:00.
In T/Z view, this means protoss always can attack at the peak when their army value is most.
In P view, this means if you dont use this warpgate advantage, you have to rely on the crap units to defend.
|
I dont agree wirh this because even if you dont have emps u dont always lose to fungal growth. They do about the same damage right? I mean if you have good micro you could alwayd dodge storms.
|
Netherlands165 Posts
Hmm I agree, I played you sometimes in ladder and I could just see the frustration in your play, however I play both terran and protoss and I also find the matchup from both sides very boring ;/
|
On October 03 2011 03:39 ledarsi wrote:
The problem with warp gate should be obvious to anyone. Compare the Warp Gate and the Gateway. The warp gate has a shorter cooldown than the gateway has build time, and in addition allows the protoss to warp in their units anywhere.
The correct way to balance warp gate would be to have the warp gate cooldown be longer than the time needed by a gateway to construct the same unit. However, you may warp in that unit anywhere. This means going for the fast warp gate can be used offensively, however if you continue to aggress ineffectively the defending protoss building out of gateways will slowly build a bigger army. Strategy games are about tradeoffs, and warp gate isn't one. Warp gates are strictly dominant over gateways.
Their pitiful attempt to balance this strict dominance was to just give it a MASSIVE build time, which just hurts my brain as to what they could possibly be thinking.
The total lack of positional play making the game blob warz is a very astute comment. Blizzard has put in so many mechanics to discourage positional play because they think it is "static" and "boring." They understand nothing.
I love this post I could see a situation where the Warp gate timer could be say 60-80 seconds so it wouldn't be a great idea to use it, in less you were going on the offensive or trying a harass with warp prism. This change needs to be made, I don't know how they would buff basic gateway units to make the change though bringing Khardarin Amulet back would be a start.
|
i strongly disagree that tvp is not micro intensive. late game multi pronged drops take some good multitasking skills to be effective and the feedback/emp duel is always intense.
Terrans are lazy, thats why the game is always just mmm lategame. You mentioned the oz v byun video in your post which i found to be a great game. It shows that other compositions are viable, just that most terrans would rather hit t and a click with bio than micro hellions and spread tanks. Thorzain is another good example. His TSL 3 games (while dated) were incredible and his heavy thor usage was quite the innovation. Terrans just need to experiment more and try to think outside the box, because as it stands many pro terrans end up just going for a mass marauder medivac 2 base timing for a quick ezpz win against a toss who's transitioning to collosus or HT -_-
TvZ is probably the coolest macro matchup though, especially when its DRG v terrans since his decision making and unit control are just impeccable.
|
i like most of the points made in the OP, but i think the author forgets one thing: the medivac. a good terran is constantly doing drops, killing probes, sniping important buildings, etc.... multi-tasking becomes very important.
at some point, drops become much less viable, but a protoss' ability to deal with drops in the early/mid-game sets up the rest of the game.
|
I totally agree with you Predy, TvP feels very blan to me and also feels like its missing an element of positional play. But yes, it is only vanilla SC2 and you cannot say SC1 was a great game until BW. So hopefully well see some nice changes as the game evolves. Thanks for sharing
|
the main problem in this matchup is emp
you cant micro against emp and it counters everything toss has
|
On October 03 2011 05:14 robih wrote:
the main problem in this matchup is emp
you cant micro against emp and it counters everything toss has
this discussion is not about balance and on protoss' side.
It's about Terran and game design
|
On October 02 2011 11:09 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2011 07:11 eourcs wrote:
TvP is a really odd matchup, where I think someone with perfect control and macro will be unbeatable, regardless of how well the Protoss plays (this is barring 1-1-1 which I do think is imbalanced), but like 99% of players I don't have that, so the matchup is hard as fuck. At the highest level, it's possible that it's imbalanced, but at every other level, the people who complain about Terran are idiots. Lategame TvP is extremely hard, and personally, I have never seen anybody beat Hasuobs when he gets Templar/Collosus and a solid 3-4 base economy, regardless of how far behind he is. I feel the opposite - TvP is a matchup where if both players played perfectly, terran should never ever win. So dependant on getting good drops etc. Of course its pretty damn close to impossible to play the level of perfect that you can consistently every game deny every single drop which might even make it terran favored in reality. Anyway, I agree 100% with PredY's post, bio TvP makes me want to quit -_-
I agree that if the Protoss can deny every drop they should be ahead, but I just assumed that the perfect Terran would always find a way to deal damage with a drop; so it's mostly an unstoppable force vs. an unmovable object argument ^_^. Though I think that it's possible for a Terran to always do some damage with a drop, while it's virtually impossible for a Protoss to deny every drop unless, like you said, they have maphacks.
|
On October 03 2011 05:07 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 03:39 ledarsi wrote:
The problem with warp gate should be obvious to anyone. Compare the Warp Gate and the Gateway. The warp gate has a shorter cooldown than the gateway has build time, and in addition allows the protoss to warp in their units anywhere.
The correct way to balance warp gate would be to have the warp gate cooldown be longer than the time needed by a gateway to construct the same unit. However, you may warp in that unit anywhere. This means going for the fast warp gate can be used offensively, however if you continue to aggress ineffectively the defending protoss building out of gateways will slowly build a bigger army. Strategy games are about tradeoffs, and warp gate isn't one. Warp gates are strictly dominant over gateways.
Their pitiful attempt to balance this strict dominance was to just give it a MASSIVE build time, which just hurts my brain as to what they could possibly be thinking.
The total lack of positional play making the game blob warz is a very astute comment. Blizzard has put in so many mechanics to discourage positional play because they think it is "static" and "boring." They understand nothing. I love this post I could see a situation where the Warp gate timer could be say 60-80 seconds so it wouldn't be a great idea to use it, in less you were going on the offensive or trying a harass with warp prism. This change needs to be made, I don't know how they would buff basic gateway units to make the change though bringing Khardarin Amulet back would be a start.
I want to add to the love for this idea with one caviat, I would like to see it implemented in a way where you don't have to transform the gateway every time you want to do a warp instead.
When KA first got removed I thought of an idea where mabye making them out of a gateway would give the KA buff, but then I realized that if you begin building a HT and warp in a HT at the same time with this mechanic they'd have roughly the same energy when the built one popped out, just another example of gateways being oddly useless.
|
couple of things i dont agree with.
Tanks have made TvZ and TvT fun to play/watch
im sorry.What?
Ive never really played terran, not above the campaign or at a high gold level a few season ago, but tanks in TvT are so fucking boring. I dunno about TvZ, sometimes it can be fun watching tanks blow the shit out of banelings, but id say they're pretty boring to watch.
Saying 'toss go collosus and you have no vikings? you die.They go HT and you have no ghosts? you die' (its the same for toss btw. If a terran goes ghosts and you dont have HT you die, unless they cant emp for shit)
thats the same for any race in any MU - if you dont scout your opponents tech path/composition you deserve to die tbh.
And bad positioning can destroy a toss army.If you capure him with his army split up even the slighest, or with his zealots at the back and sentries at the front, all the HT together, collosus vulnerable ect then you can win the game there and then as terran.
@ Ledarsi what league are you? cos your views on balance are obviously blinded by something. What you say about the WG - its cooldown should be longer then the gateway but you can warp in anywhere. Think about how that would work, for just a second.
Toss would have to decide between being defensive and aggresive. If you change to WG and then a small, early game terran force appears at your ramp, and you units, which already nearly take twice as long to build as terran tier one, now take EVEN longer to warp in......thats GG
You;d have to make it so you can build them normally from a gateway, or warp them in, without having to morph the gateway. Either that or a toss player would have to make half WG and leave the rest as gateways just in case.
i agree that the warp in mechanic needs to be changed, but you cant just blindly make it longer then the gateway build time, as terran would have an even bigger advantage early game.
@ op its a good read though 
|
I have no idea why this was spotlighted. So a mod agreed with the sentiment and this get's spotlighted? Seriously?
On October 01 2011 05:49 PredY wrote:1 Introduction, StarCraft 2 philosophy?I believe blizzards intended to make sc2 a fast paced game, which means they wanted to make low tier units useful, Marine+Marauder being the prime example of that. It means that there's rarely a passage in the game where nothing is happening (on the pro level). But does this hurt the game? Are low tier units too strong? Also it seems blizzard wants to make as many units viable as possible in all matchups so they can have variety in the gameplay. In BW, that was not the case, as marines were almost useless in both TvT and TvP besides couple timing attacks (f.e. Deep6). I believe sc2 TvP has the similar issue, but i'll get to that later.
I have a few questions right off the bat. What do you mean by hurt the game? Do you mean that it is boring to watch, or boring to play, or both? I'm not sure I understand the sentiment that it hurts the game, unless you give me some qualifications for that statement.
So what is the reason TvP is all bio? Marauders and warpgates. It's unfortunate that TvP got screwed because tanks were "too strong" in TvZ and were nerfed. Marauders are much more cost effective vs protoss. Hell i hate them, marauders. Such a boring unit. Even more than collosus. You make marine marauder then switch to marine marauder and in late game transition into marine marauder, errrr wait a minute...there's just no option like in other matchups.Warpgates is in my oppinion the worst game mechanic they could put into the game, but that has been discussed to death. I really DO HOPE they will change it in HoTS, but i don't expect so.
Again, you just throw out something random without qualification. What do you mean the marauder is boring? What does that actually mean in terms of gameplay or observing? I happen to like the marauder. I think the marauder introduces variety into the TvT match-up. I like that bio play can play against mech since it punishes mistakes. I like that bio can transition into mech and then into sky terran. I think that actually makes for exciting TvT and the reason TvT is the best mirror.
How about you having wrong unit composition? He has collosus and you have no vikings? You lose. He has storms and you have no EMPs? You lose. Remember when in BW you had no tanks but you could still kill lurkers with godly micro? Or when you have too many vultures against a lot of dragoons but not enough tanks, you would go in and surround with mines and then 10 goons turned to blue goo? I want THAT!
And this is a problem with any race. Build order losses happen. This has been addressed by other people in the thread. If you have cloacked banshees and your opponent has no form of detection, then you lose. What is your point?
I skimmed through this thread and saw a lot of different posts addressing the issues with the OP. I get that the OP wants a more positional game and wants more micro capabilities. That's fine, the OP has a right to his opinion. But why was this spotlighted? This should be a blog post. There is no discussion to be had. The OP hates the marauder, while other people do not. What is it that we are supposed to be discussing? How much the marauder sucks? How is any of this useful either to TL or to Blizzard?
|
TvP is actually my favourite MU both to play and watch. To comment on a couple of points made:
1) Late game TvP is very micro intensive for Terran players - as mentioned by Thorzain. Kiting is key, while also managing EMP and viking targeting.
2) The original comment that the MU is bland seems to me more a preference or style issue. Personally I enjoy the speed of the engagements; the manner in which moving/positioning your bio and vikings is important; the way battles tend to move backwards and forwards as storms go off and/or EMPs necessitate and retreat and regroup. Blink adds an additional dynamic to an engagement. While the MU may lock you in to a certain army composition, is this not the same with all other matchups? Indeed, at the highest level of play, there is an accepted standard/compositional strategy that yields the best results.
3) That being said, as the game evolves, different effective strategies will be discovered and perfected. Remember, SC2 is only a year old! BW took much longer to reach the pinnacle of its competitiveness and diversity. Just a few weeks ago, Protoss was considered the weakest race of the three, only to have been given a new lease on life as innovative and exciting strategies are developed and unknown players storm onto the scene.
4) In an RTS game, every unit must have something to counter it, otherwise we see even more homogeneous army compositions. It's not designing new units or deleting/adding technologies that will change this MU, but rather tweaking existing counters until a subtle balance is found that allows a smooth flow to a match. All patches to this point are doing exactly that, slowly but surely refining the game, not redefining it. I fear that if radical changes are made like some people in this thread would advocate, it would set the game back rather than move it forward.
|
I agree the OP, TvP doesn't really capture the essence of Terran, it feels like something more like Zerg or Protoss. I really like how TvT and TvZ are, because there are a multitude of styles and ways you can play those MUs, but TvP is strictly limited to bio. I don't care if bio is good, in fact, i think the best way is to have both bio and mech/biomech be viable, so that different types of players can still have an enjoyable experience.
|
I wish the OP never mentioned "micro" in this context, because how fast someone a-clicks and presses s/h isn't what makes a match up fun to watch or interesting to play, regardless of whether there are tanks on the map or not. Like what has been stated already, the fact that tanks aren't viable in tvp means that there is no fighting for position. It's all just mashing two lumps of groups together and hoping you do whatever magical thing it is that you need to do in order to win engagements.
I think tvp is going to remain a really lame match up throughout the life of SC2 and all its expansions. No way are Blizzard going to remove warp gate tech, even though the game would be much better off if they did. Blizzard also has this really flawed design mentality of wanting to cater to every style of play, via map size/style (rush vs marco). This basically means that it is impossible to balance the tank properly. A 60-70 damage per round siege tank is broken on rush maps, and a 35 (+15) damage tank is too weak on a "macro" map the size of tal darim, where you don't always want all your tanks in one big ball, but rather have smaller groups of units in different key locations. 2 siege tanks protecting an expo isn't a deterrent to any of the races at the moment.
Seriously, the way protoss is designed really makes me want to make an RTS mod for DOTA2 or something - just take the advances blizzard made over BW and disregard all the retarded stuff.
|
On October 03 2011 05:54 Quotidian wrote:
I wish the OP never mentioned "micro" in this context, because how fast someone a-clicks and presses s/h isn't what makes a match up fun to watch or interesting to play, regardless of whether there are tanks on the map or not. Like what has been stated already, the fact that tanks aren't viable in tvp means that there is no fighting for position. It's all just mashing two lumps of groups together and hoping you do whatever magical thing it is that you need to do in order to win engagements.
I think tvp is going to remain a really lame match up throughout the life of SC2 and all its expansions. No way are Blizzard going to remove warp gate tech, even though the game would be much better off if they did. Blizzard also has this really flawed design mentality of wanting to cater to every style of play, via map size/style (rush vs marco). This basically means that it is impossible to balance the tank properly. A 60-70 damage per round siege tank is broken on rush maps, and a 35 (+15) damage tank is too weak on a "macro" map the size of tal darim, where you don't always want all your tanks in one big ball, but rather have smaller groups of units in different key locations. 2 siege tanks protecting an expo isn't a deterrent to any of the races at the moment.
Seriously, the way protoss is designed really makes me want to make an RTS mod for DOTA2 or something - just take the advances blizzard made over BW and disregard all the retarded stuff.
wow i dont know the exact cost of tanks, but wanting 2 to defend an expo is completely retarded. If that was possible then terran, and tanks, would be completely broken.
If you remove the warp mechanic, you reduce the build time, or buff every gateway unit, or do something that isnt going to completely destroy the game - which is what would happen if you simply remove warp gate tech.
Id be amazed if they werent trying to find ways to change it right now, but its alot harder then some people like to think, the people who think they know how to balance this game. Which to them is basically making every race that isnt their own weaker and worse.
And i dont think blizz are too stubborn to go back on themselves, if they realise that warp in really doesnt work then they'll remove it. But that would result in a complete overhaul of toss, cos their main ability to counter attack and apply pressure would be gone and then they;d just be a turtling race - if you last past the early-mid game, what with terran tier one units being cheaper, quicker to build, and just all round better. They're much better off trying to fixWG as apposed to removing it, and then rebuilding toss as it were
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
