|
Honestly the Marauders only uses are in TvT and TvP. In TvZ sometimes yous ee them late game vs Ultras but that really not very necessary as fully upgraded tanks and marines with ghosts support are better anyways.
If the Marauder was removed( (^_^)!!!!!!) and Tanks were buffed to compensate (ie: deal full damage to shields or something) TvP would be a WAAAAAAAY better matchup to watch and why? because then you could truly appreciate the skills of both players instead of being oh herpderp Terran made marauders and Protoss made collosus and tried to 1a into each other el oh el another TvP in the books.
I seriously find it impossible to actually enjoy a TvP in this game.
And for the person who said Mech would be invincible because Carriers were what you got in BW and they are useless now.... they are only useless now because in TvP right now Terran is going vikings anyways and also has stim Marines with them. When Meching you aren't going to have the marines and you are going to run on as few vikings as possible to maintain a potent ground army and if you overcompensate...just like in current TvP it would mean Protoss ground could walk over them even if the Carriers got taken out.
|
lizzard_warish
i think you got tvp correct
but when you say "situationally banshee and hellion" for tvz maybe you should leave hellion as one of the "core" units in TvZ as i think they are very very frequently used and even opened with, also lets not forget thors in both TvZ and TvT, i think it would be better to sum up units that are viable/situational/mostly nonviable in every match up
NOTE: these terms are refer to units that are feasible army composition units
TvP
Viable: marines marauders medivacs ghosts vikings
situtional: tanks banshee (1 or 2 base all ins)
mostly nonviable: thors battlecruisers raven hellions reapers
Tvz
Viable: marines marauders medivacs ghosts vikings thors hellions raven tanks
situtional: banshee (im tempted to put marauders here but i feel they are a pretty smooth transition against ultras once you have upgraded marines)
mostly nonviable: reapers battlecruisers
TvT
every unit has been used in TvT alot and the match up still changes with mass marine being a popular new strat by pros for instance
situational: reaper
on a sidenote i believe the design of the reaper to be a failure. i remember videos pre beta where they showed reapers doing raids on an enemy base while your enemy was away, currently i feel the reaper has been reduced to an early game scout/gimick unit, the production time and fragility of this unit does not allow for it to be part of an army, and they are too much of an investment to make a solid "enemy base raid" past 10:00 especially in TvP where one critical engagement usually decides the game (due to retreating being nearly impossible in sc2) wasting precious resources and time on reapers is going to make you that much weaker.
|
Mech will never be viable or used ever unless there is some incentive or strength to using Mech instead of Bio.
As of right now Bio is A)more mobile B) more cost efficient C) easier to use
Unless the Marauder is removed this will never occur and most Classic Terran haters will probably go Sky Terran anyways if that were the case.
|
Russian Federation899 Posts
On October 07 2011 13:07 Raiznhell wrote:
Mech will never be viable or used ever unless there is some incentive or strength to using Mech instead of Bio.
As of right now Bio is A)more mobile B) more cost efficient C) easier to use
agreed. In most cases bio is really more cost effective than mech (late game TvZ bio vs utras; TvP) which is complete nonsense.
|
Good post. I view the main problems as being marauders + collossi (especially colossi.) They make the match boring to watch and boring to play.
Also the ball movement mechanics in sc2 mean splash damage is far more powerful than it should be. This leads me to the final problem in my eyes, hard counters. Counters should exist in sc but nothing that makes entire tech trees obsolete, makes the game stagnant.
|
Oh god this, I hate how tightly units clump in sc2. And why blizz change it?
SC1 style was much more interesting in this regard IMO.
|
On October 07 2011 12:57 NaturalHacks wrote:
lizzard_warish
i think you got tvp correct
but when you say "situationally banshee and hellion" for tvz maybe you should leave hellion as one of the "core" units in TvZ as i think they are very very frequently used and even opened with, also lets not forget thors in both TvZ and TvT, i think it would be better to sum up units that are viable/situational/mostly nonviable in every match up
NOTE: these terms are refer to units that are feasible army composition units
TvP
Viable: marines marauders medivacs ghosts vikings
situtional: tanks banshee (1 or 2 base all ins)
mostly nonviable: thors battlecruisers raven hellions reapers
Tvz
Viable: marines marauders medivacs ghosts vikings thors hellions raven tanks
situtional: banshee (im tempted to put marauders here but i feel they are a pretty smooth transition against ultras once you have upgraded marines)
mostly nonviable: reapers battlecruisers
TvT
every unit has been used in TvT alot and the match up still changes with mass marine being a popular new strat by pros for instance
situational: reaper
on a sidenote i believe the design of the reaper to be a failure. i remember videos pre beta where they showed reapers doing raids on an enemy base while your enemy was away, currently i feel the reaper has been reduced to an early game scout/gimick unit, the production time and fragility of this unit does not allow for it to be part of an army, and they are too much of an investment to make a solid "enemy base raid" past 10:00 especially in TvP where one critical engagement usually decides the game (due to retreating being nearly impossible in sc2) wasting precious resources and time on reapers is going to make you that much weaker.
Im not sure why you say reapers are not viable. Delayed reapers scouts are both common and good. Apart from that nice post.
EDIT: Ah you mean not viable in main army. Sorry.
|
well lets hope they focus more on mech than on bio in next expansions (the unit picture tease sadly looks like bio tho :<)
|
On October 07 2011 12:07 Fanatic-Templar wrote:
Forgive a newbie if what he says is crazy, but if the problem is that the PvT matchup has no zone-control of the type provided in other matchups by the Siege Tank, does the solution actually require making the Siege Tank work, or would any means of zone-control be adequate to improve the matchup?
Because, and correct me if my understanding is flawed, but it seems that this is what Khaydarin Amulet High Templar provided, isn't it? The ability for warp-in Storms would make the Protoss very strong defensively, but because High Templar are exceedingly vulnerable, slow and incapable of prolonged combat (due to running out of energy) they cannot push as strongly as, say, Colossi. And the warping in of Pylons would be a period of vulnerability, much like Tanks sieging/unsieging, allowing for Pylon pushes.
I mean, I am just a low-Diamond newbie and understand little of such things, but that sounds reasonable to me.
I agree. Protoss has very little in the way of a defender's advantage without a massive mineral sink into cannons against Terran (which just isn't viable TvP unless you are on 4++ bases, and even then its only effective against small numbers of bio units) or pre-emptive camping of HT that have been gathering energy since the Amulet nerf. Being able to warp in a HT with storm made some very crafty and elusive play possible that is simply not viable anymore. Though I admit it did seem overpowered at times to have warp in storms, I don't think there is any denying that it made mass expansions and more fluid non-death-ball type play from Protoss waaaay more viable. It is very nearly suicidal to split one's army TvP these days, as the cost effectiveness of small bio groups with a medivac against a roughly equal number of stalkers/zealots/sentries is pretty staggering. Some way of getting back the capacity to defend one's bases TvP without hurling twice as many units as have been dropped by the Terran (or having made precautionary HT sitting around in your base indefinitely, which is a somewhat ugly and inefficient way to solve the problem) would improve the matchup, I think.
|
On October 07 2011 02:05 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 21:59 captainwaffles wrote:On October 06 2011 18:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On October 04 2011 05:02 EnderSword wrote:
How did a Brood War > SC2 Thread, and what is basically a hidden balance whine thread become a featured post?
He acknowledges that some players simply don't play the style he's complaining about, but then says he didn't bother to check if those guys were doing well.
Whole thing seems silly, 'We only play this style....except for 1/1/1 which is dominating the scene, and mech play which I'm ignoring'
If most people wrote this, it'd just be closed.
The bioball right now is pretty successful, so there's not a lot of incentive to move away from it. There was a time when mech was almost unstoppable, and 1/1/1 shows the ability to mix bio and mech early for amazing results.
There's a lot of options here and we see more all the time, I don't think its bad design that people use viable strategies. 1-1-1 is a build order, not a play style. You can't continue to make tanks and banshees all throughout the game against a Tournament level player, eventually you will transition into lots of Marines and Marauders and Medivacs once you get to late game. Even mech will eventually have to transition into bio, because once you are on more than 2 bases your defenses will be far too weak and immobile. Which is why mech always results in 2 base timing attack, win or lose. Also a couple people have mentioned the 1-1-1 being too powerful. Tanks have a lot of dps un-sieged and that is part of the problem. When a siege tank does just as much damaged seiged as unsieged wheres the dynamics, theres no timing protoss can exploit to snipe the tanks and slow the army down. The second problem is clumping. In BW you would always get straggling units that would get sniped if you didn't pay attention to you army, this means good players could continuously harass the back of a moving army in order to weaken it and slow it down, so that by the time they reach your base they only have half the original power and you have double. The third problem is PDD (dark swarm) being available to Terran in such an early stage of the game. Dark Swarm was hive tech in BW and was only really viable after researching consume. Now you have it at Starport Tech wtf. This is coupled with the fact that Siege Tanks are already a perfect unit for controlling space. PDD is also more powerful than Dark Swarm because it can't be used against you. Dark Swarm was an ability Zerg needed to make lings and ultralisks viable lategame, why Terran has it now, I have no freaking clue. Umm...you are pretty wrong. The root cause is that you're speaking in absolutes. Mech certainly does not always result in a 1-2 base timing... It is sustainable through the late game ( very map dependant however, any map that can be split in half, Shakuras for example is a great map for mech). I'm not going to bother talking about 1-1-1 allin, other than this small suggestion, try flanking- use your army as if they were your hands and the terran army were silly putty. Pull that shit apart in different directions. Much of the time it isn't the units you make but how you use them. It shouldn't be map dependent. Statistically it doesn't make sense to be on more than 2 bases as a meching Terran, you only ever really needed 3 bases in BW TvP on Fighting Spirit of which is a very open map. Now you don't have spider-mines and siege tanks are 3 supply and Protoss has recall in mid-game practically for free, there's simply no point in having more than 2 bases because your attack will come later but Protoss will be so much more powerful. I used to play Mech Terran against Top Master/GM Protoss's on NA. I attempted many times to play a 3 base mech but 2 base is just so much more powerful for many reasons. The point of early 3 base mech is that you use the extra-economy to come out with a more powerful timing attack without needing to harass that much if at all. Toss can get 6 bases and go carriers it doesn't really matter, you can still win in BW. However this doesn't work in SC2, for the following reasons. - Toss can have the same amount of bases and completely destroy you and cost-effectively. - Because of immobility, Mech requires being able to harass very effectively with a minimal amount of units, this is usually a 1 tank 2 vulture or 4 vulture drop. However because Toss doesn't need as many bases against mech Terran, it means Toss can just surround his 3 bases with cannons. Which means you have to do very powerful drops with lots of units, only MMMVG can do this. - Toss now has recall in early-mid game instead of lategame, recall was the bane of all Terrans in BW and it required a TON of tech. The way Terrans deal with recall these days is by putting spider mines everywhere in their main, because they are unable to move their army back in time and would simply lose otherwise. SC2 Terran does not have spidermines, if they put turrets everywhere then their timing attack will be many times weaker. Conclusion, why go Mech when MMMVG is just so much better equipped to handle anything Protoss can do? simply there is no point going Mech unless you are just doing it for fun. But no-one is going to do that when money is on the line.
If protoss stays on the ground (never going air tech) that is an easy win for you on maps that can be split in half. I mech exclusively too against the same set of players you did. I mean it is very difficult to talk about this stuff without the context of the game but it sounds like you made some postioning errors or micro errors. Mech is stronger than protoss ground armies when controll properly.
|
Agree with Predy. I find problem is something to do with overall game design (multiplayer mostly). Bliz made some terrible decisions trying to put cool features in a high competitve rts-game. And made everything very fast and do terrible damage, which basically omitted any strategic play and good decision making. Then they dismissed such fundamental things as defender's advantage and unit training time. I don't think Dustin B and David K doing a great job, I really hope bliz hired better game designers, someone younger and fresher (like icefrog).
scbw's last patch was 1.16, wc3's last patch was 1.25, sc2 is already 1.41 (in one year!!!). Something is fundamentally wrong with the game.
|
On October 05 2011 13:39 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 13:28 xTrim wrote:
Ok................................... I`ve read every single page since this thread started...
And there is only ONE ONE ONE thing I want to discuss regarding the match up....
Only a couple of people mentioned Sky terran.... We know, it`s not really developed nor will it be any time soon... But for instance...... Like an ultimate transition, in a game of many many bsaes, with sensorial towers and turrets and planetaries everywhere, you`d have upgraded ship stuff because of vikings...
What would happen if you, for instance put down 15 starports, a fusion core, get all your bio, load into 12 medivacs and drop 2 of them on each base, i dunno something like that, make a shitton of mules and sack svcs... then while this trade happens (drops, scvs, etc) reinforce with like 5 bcs, a couple of ravens, a shitload of banshees and some ghosts??
Is it just NOT possible? It's possible, but as with all SKY strategies (like carriers, BCs and Broodlords), there's a HUGE timing window where the opposing player can just push and destroy your entire economy and half of your starports too.
I dunno, thats way too far into the late game. Think about it, if you do manage to bring out BC, viking, banshee, raven combo.... pheonix + void rays can take it down pretty easily. In the end, its the raven that truely helps win the battle for sky terran.
I feel raven is the biggest key to change TvP but i really dont see that much to the extent yet. Most people rather pump out more medivacs or ghosts, so the use of raven due to cost to performance in comparison to ghost or medivacs will remain bad.
|
On October 08 2011 04:09 bokeevboke wrote:
And made everything very fast and do terrible damage, which basically omitted any strategic play and good decision making.
I've always thought it was the opposite, hence why I never particularly enjoyed WarCraft III. If speed were the problem, we could simply make tournaments play on Normal or slower speeds, rather than Faster.
On October 08 2011 04:09 bokeevboke wrote:
scbw's last patch was 1.16, wc3's last patch was 1.25, sc2 is already 1.41 (in one year!!!). Something is fundamentally wrong with the game.
By your reckoning, Brood War is on patch 1.161.
Actually, it's patch 1.4.1. Or patch 1.041 to Brood War's patch 1.16.1 or 1.161.
And, for comparison's sake, Brood War's patch 1.4 came out in December 1998.
Also for comparison's sake, here's the balance changes from Brood War's patch 1.4:
+ Show Spoiler +
Wraith:
Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas.
Increased cooldown rate of ground attack.
Increased air to air damage to 20.
Dropship:
Increased speed slightly.
Science Vessel:
Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 225 gas.
Increased acceleration
Increased overall damage of Irradiate
Increased sight radius
Battlecruiser:
Increased starting armor to 3
Increased Yamato Cannon damage to 260
Goliath:
Increased ground damage to 12
Increased effectiveness of weapon upgrade on ground to air weapon system
Nuke:
Nuclear Missiles build faster
ComSat:
Decreased energy cost to 50
Starport:
Decrease cost of Starport to 150 minerals, 100 gas
Decreased add-on cost of Control Tower to 50 minerals, 50 gas
Decreased build time
Archon:
Increased acceleration
Dragoon:
Decreased cost to 125 minerals, 50 gas
Decreased build time
Increased range upgrade (Singularity Charge) by 1
High Templar:
Decreased energy cost of Hallucination to 100
Scout:
Increased Air to Air damage to 28
Base Armor of Scout changed from 1 to 0
Increased shields to 100 and hit points to 150
Increased cooldown rate of ground attack
Carrier:
Changed build cost to 350 minerals, and 250 gas
Increased hit points of Carrier to 300
Increased starting armor of Carrier to 4
Increased Interceptor shields and hitpoints to 40
Increased Interceptor damage to 6
Decreased Interceptor cost to 25
Arbiter:
Decreased cost to 100 minerals, 350 gas
Shuttle:
Increased build time
Reaver:
Increased build time
Templar Archives:
Increased cost to 150 minerals, 200 gas.
Citadel of Adun:
Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas.
Stargate:
Decreased cost to 150 minerals, 150 gas
Decreased build time
Robotics Facility:
Increased build time
Robotics Support Bay:
Increased cost to 150 minerals, 100 gas
Observatory:
Decreased cost to 50 minerals, 100 gas
Forge:
Decreased cost to 150 minerals
Photon Cannon:
Decreased build time
Fleet Beacon:
Decreased cost of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade to 100 minerals, 100 gas
Decreased research time of "Increased Carrier capacity" upgrade
Shield Battery:
Increased starting energy to 100
Increased effective range of “Recharge Shields” ability
Overlord:
Increased speed bonus for "Pneumatized Carapace" upgrade
Decreased research time of "Ventral Sacs" upgrade
Scourge:
Increase hit points to 25
Hydralisk:
Increased build time
Queen:
Increased range of Broodling by 1
Increase energy cost of Parasite to 75
Decreased Parasite casting range to 12
Defiler:
Increased cost to 50 minerals, 150 gas
Hatchery:
Decreased the speed at which the Hatchery/Lair/Hive spawn new larva
Decreased build cost to 300 minerals
Increased build time
Sunken Colony:
Decreased cost of Sunken Colony upgrade to 50 minerals
Decreased build time
Increased attack rate of Sunken Colony
Increased damage to 40
Spore Colony:
Decreased build time
Changed damage type to normal
Greater Spire:
Increased build time
|
Stylistically it seems kind of weird to see guys in space suits taking on giant robots and psychic energy things. Is this Starcraft or Warhammer 40K?
Also one thing I noticed about TvZ in SC2 is that you always have to run away from banelings. In SC1 you could run towards lurkers in certain situations, but with banelings you have to retreat.
One more thing I just thought of: It was pretty amazing how good SC1 terrans were at cleaning up recalls, but in SC2 if you have 8 marauders in your base and your army isn't right there to deal with it you're going to lose half of your buildings in seconds.
|
@op nice read, and in most parts i agree with you. while i am most of the time a bad player (platinum) and only recently began watching starcraft 1, i noticed that i enjoy watching zerg and especially terran way more in sc1 than in sc2. personally i dont like terran in sc2 at all, neither to see, nor to play, in difference to sc1.
i think the main reason is bio. if i think of a future terrean army, i imagine something like the sc1 army, like the more upgraded modern military that learned some tricks, a mixture of foot soldiers and tanks or tanks and buggys and defensive mines.
i cant really imagine a bunch of guys in armored suits with a small spaceshuttle flying above them that heals them with a ray faster than a zealot or a zergling can kill them. especially not a guy in a heavy armored suit who takes drugs to be faster than everything except a speedling. he should be a human. it just sounds wrong.
apart from that bio feels way less strategic, while i think that micro plays a bigger role, positioning and terrain become less important. i think that the fight is pretty boring because of that.
On October 08 2011 12:39 BrosephBrostar wrote:
Stylistically it seems kind of weird to see guys in space suits taking on giant robots and psychic energy things. Is this Starcraft or Warhammer 40K?
Also one thing I noticed about TvZ in SC2 is that you always have to run away from banelings. In SC1 you could run towards lurkers in certain situations, but with banelings you have to retreat.
stylistically it's even worse, starcraft 2 takes itself serious while not having guys who are genetic breeded super-soldiers with special anti-vehicle-equipment but only normal criminals who shoot the robots with machine-guns and grenade-launchers.
i think the loss of e.g. reaver drops is more sad. but i also think that sc1 had more different micro-situations than sc2 where it's pretty much about kiting and splitting all the time.
|
On October 07 2011 03:21 Thezzy wrote:
The Colossus is the only ranged mobile massive unit that deals high splash damage. (tanks arent massive and need to siege/unsiege)
The Ultralisk is only melee and requires Hive tech and the Thor has only range 7 and no splash at all.
Colossi need to be air-targetable for balance sake, otherwise mass Colossi would faceroll over any ground composition with impunity.
The damage/rate of fire should not be touched, otherwise you one shot stuff in between volleys far too easily.
you are talking about something you imagined, not what i wrote. colossus with nerfed mobility wouldn't be viable. there was a reason mass reaver wasn't a good strategy in bw. what i suggested was to make the colossus more reaver-like- maybe the mobility and attack rate wouldn't be enough.
Colossi that cant be targetted by air plus this?
Any sort of Immortal or Colossus push would 100% finish Terran, no contest.
Snipe can only be used against Zealots and Templar (one of which is cloaked and has 120hp and the other you want to EMP) and Nukes and Cloak are far too situational.
It would also mean Ghosts would have no less than three upgrades only for the Ghost itself, which is too much.
amulet was removed after a semi-balanced period when protoss started to win more vs terran in korea. but it wasn't near the 70% winrate as it is in tvp now. and they removed amulet. now protoss sucks ass vs terran and they changed basically nothing that effects the matchup. but i guess you love your favorite race too much to comprehend this. ghost is already like the strongest unit in game vs protoss and vs a nerfed colossus it would be even more powerful.
Ultralisk are already highly mobile, on creep they nearly have 4 speed, close to a Hellion, with 500 HP and 6 armor.
If they can walk over the lings it would make Ling/Ultra swamp anything on the ground outside of your modified Colossi deathball.
ultralisks are only mobile on creep, they are dancing around retardedly whenever they don't have full open ground. i don't even play zerg, it's just painful how 10 ultras look like attacking in any kind of non-open terrain. they are the clumsiest unit in game, easily countered by terrans. but i guess you are too much in love with your favorite race to even imagine something that barely effects the matchups
Would give Zerg too much map vision early game.
Zerg already possess very powerful early map presence, giving them fast overlords from Hatch tech is not needed.
maybe it's not needed, but a 100/100 upgrade that takes time to research makes it easier to scout with zerg. zerg has got the clumsiest ways to scout a base. if they adjust the research time properly, this would only mean that where a zerg sends a sac overlord to scout the p/t base it wouldn't necessarily die half way through when it didn't see any information.
Completely random statement that makes no sense.
Protoss can take a 3rd just as easily as a Terran or a Zerg.
Add in a pylon and you can warp in immediate reinforcements against any harass.
it's primarily meant for the pvz matchup and obviously it's a complex question. but based on your last sentence you're simply not able to comprehend that protoss has the hardest time securing a new base, so your comment is 100% worthless.
|
On October 08 2011 17:04 msjakofsky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 03:21 Thezzy wrote:
The Colossus is the only ranged mobile massive unit that deals high splash damage. (tanks arent massive and need to siege/unsiege)
The Ultralisk is only melee and requires Hive tech and the Thor has only range 7 and no splash at all.
Colossi need to be air-targetable for balance sake, otherwise mass Colossi would faceroll over any ground composition with impunity.
The damage/rate of fire should not be touched, otherwise you one shot stuff in between volleys far too easily.
you are talking about something you imagined, not what i wrote. colossus with nerfed mobility wouldn't be viable. there was a reason mass reaver wasn't a good strategy in bw. what i suggested was to make the colossus more reaver-like- maybe the mobility and attack rate wouldn't be enough.
Your modified not-air-targettable Colossi, even with some reduced mobility would still be nothing more than tanks with slightly less range that don't need to siege up to do their splash damage. If you go for Colossi, you already sacrifice some mobility as the Colossi don't make for a good defense against being dropped and the like, that wouldn't change. But the deathball would be a lot stronger, even it was a little slower.
The only unit Terran would have that could effectively target a Colossus that cannot be targetted by air are Siege Tanks, and those are rather crap against Protoss for several reasons.
Zerg would have no ranged unit at all, Infestors with Neural Parasite at range 7 would not be able to help out either.
On October 08 2011 17:04 msjakofsky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 03:21 Thezzy wrote:
Colossi that cant be targetted by air plus this?
Any sort of Immortal or Colossus push would 100% finish Terran, no contest.
Snipe can only be used against Zealots and Templar (one of which is cloaked and has 120hp and the other you want to EMP) and Nukes and Cloak are far too situational.
It would also mean Ghosts would have no less than three upgrades only for the Ghost itself, which is too much.
amulet was removed after a semi-balanced period when protoss started to win more vs terran in korea. but it wasn't near the 70% winrate as it is in tvp now. and they removed amulet. now protoss sucks ass vs terran and they changed basically nothing that effects the matchup. but i guess you love your favorite race too much to comprehend this. ghost is already like the strongest unit in game vs protoss and vs a nerfed colossus it would be even more powerful.
Amulet was removed because warp-in storms were overpowered.
Storms themselves were fine, Amulet itself was fine and HT themselves were fine, it was the combination of the three that was overpowered.
You could instantly drop any Storm on the map in the lategame, whereever and whenever.
Imagine Terran being able to call in a Ghost from the air (like a MULE) to insta EMP anywhere.
I actually partially disagreed with the complete removal of Amulet, I would've found it better if Amulet would have remained in effect for any High Templar produced out of a Gateway instead of a Warpgate. (and then the upgrade cost could be reduced as well).
Ghosts are something Protoss seem to think is nearly free when Ghosts are actually very expensive and the only reason Terran really gets them, is for EMP.
Just two Ghosts, with the Academy and the Moebius Reactor cost a grand total of 650 minerals and 350 gas. That is a large amount of marines and/or marauders Terran won't have.
The Ghosts themselves, outside of EMP aren't that great, early to mid game Snipe is mostly wasted as you need energy for EMP and just two Ghosts mean just two EMPs and that's it.
Ghosts suck against Colossi, the 100 shields you can take off is meaningless compared to its 9 range, 150 shields and the fact that EMP is far better spent on the Protoss main army.
Going Colossi against a Terran who is Ghost heavy is highly effective because Colossi straight up kill them, EMP or not.
On October 08 2011 17:04 msjakofsky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 03:21 Thezzy wrote:
Ultralisk are already highly mobile, on creep they nearly have 4 speed, close to a Hellion, with 500 HP and 6 armor.
If they can walk over the lings it would make Ling/Ultra swamp anything on the ground outside of your modified Colossi deathball.
ultralisks are only mobile on creep, they are dancing around retardedly whenever they don't have full open ground. i don't even play zerg, it's just painful how 10 ultras look like attacking in any kind of non-open terrain. they are the clumsiest unit in game, easily countered by terrans. but i guess you are too much in love with your favorite race to even imagine something that barely effects the matchups
Ultralisks still have nearly 3 speed off creep, equal to a Stalker and they cannot be slowed.
I have seen plenty of Ultralisk hordes rampaging through the map and dealing a huge amount of damage. Yeah if Zerg throws them into a Mech deathball with Sieged up tanks they die horribly, the same goes for many things. As for clumsy, they are melee and thus have trouble surrounding a target but that applies to all melee units, not just the UItralisk.
Have you ever seen mass Thor trying to kill something? Is it painful to look at given their slow mobility and how their size makes for a terrible concave.
Ultralisk mobility (lets not forget Nydus and Overlord drops) is not an issue I've seen Zergs struggle with at all.
On October 08 2011 17:04 msjakofsky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 03:21 Thezzy wrote:
Would give Zerg too much map vision early game.
Zerg already possess very powerful early map presence, giving them fast overlords from Hatch tech is not needed.
maybe it's not needed, but a 100/100 upgrade that takes time to research makes it easier to scout with zerg. zerg has got the clumsiest ways to scout a base. if they adjust the research time properly, this would only mean that where a zerg sends a sac overlord to scout the p/t base it wouldn't necessarily die half way through when it didn't see any information.
Zerg can somewhat get garantueed information when saccing an Overlord, why else are so many Zergs purposefully saccing Overlords. It's not that there are better alternatives but how early Overlords can scout. Even with their current speed, especially in ZvZ or on close positions that first Overlord can see everything until you kill it.
When a Zerg decides to send an early Overlord to scout the enemy base and is willing to sac it, the Zerg will run the risk of losing the Overlord without seeing anything, this applies to all scouting.
I could send in a Reaper instead of a costly scan, only for it to jump straight into a bunch of Stalkers and Protoss could end up sending an Observer straight into a Spore Crawler.
On October 08 2011 17:04 msjakofsky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 03:21 Thezzy wrote:
Completely random statement that makes no sense.
Protoss can take a 3rd just as easily as a Terran or a Zerg.
Add in a pylon and you can warp in immediate reinforcements against any harass. it's primarily meant for the pvz matchup and obviously it's a complex question. but based on your last sentence you're simply not able to comprehend that protoss has the hardest time securing a new base, so your comment is 100% worthless.
As far as I know this is a TvP discussion, why bring up something from PvZ like this?
Taking a 3rd is just as risky for Terran until that Planetary goes up (and a Planetary is only useful when attacked) and if you snipe the SCV the whole CC stops building until you get another one over there.
Zerg may have it a little easier for a 3rd but Zerg revolves around getting more expansions than their opponent as Zerg units are not as cost effective.
Ofcourse a Protoss taking a 3rd is taking a risk, this applies to all races, however, compared to the other two races, you can warp in instant reinforcements (if the harassing force is not too large) to defend it with a Pylon.
If the harassing force is too large, you would lose the 3rd, same as Terran or Zerg would.
Now I don't play PvZ (obviously) so there may or may not be an issue with Protoss taking a third against Zerg, but such a discussion has little relevance in a TvP discussion.
|
People that claim that Z has the most "clumsy" scouting are absolutely clueless and should be discredited with that single statement.
Z has by far the best scouting and map control. All races have to play blind to some degree, but OL saccing and OL/ling map control is far superior to everything, until maybe sensor towers late game.
|
terran are just silly good
|
Top 8 master Terran here and playing mech against Toss is like quitting the game before it starts.
Granted, SCWarden uses a Bio/mech mix, I don't know any other pros that play this way. Perhaps you could win a few games because Toss may not know how to respond. But grinding away with mech, you will quickly realize mech is inferior in TvP
CoLTrimaster experimented with mech versus one of his Toss friends with 200 army to 200 army. The seige spread was great, bunkers and turrets were in place, upgrades were the same, and the Toss lost 40 army.
The Terran lost everything.
The reason Koreans use Bio is because Koreans have superior mechanics and adroit micro. The reason Americans or Europeans do not have the same success with Terran is because Terran bio requires a very high level of micro and skill.
If a player has this degree of skill, they can reap small advantages and make their units many times more cost efficient.
For noobs like myself who are only Top 6 Master, I do not have the micro to make my units super cost efficient versus Storms, Collosi and many other Toss units that don't require the same micro. (I also practice micro tournament like every day).
The reality is that Terran is a race that mandates high degree of micro. Mech not only cannot be microed well against Toss, but on their own, they are just not strong units v Toss. If any Toss is bashing Terran, I suggest you attempt to play Terran at my level, watch pro streams of many terrans complaining about Toss, before commenting on why Terran do or do not do certain builds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
