Terran Identity: Damage and Supply - Page 5

For example, let's say something we agree would be good in flavor is something silly - for example, zealots with wings - an air superiority melee unit! Let's pretend we all like this conceptually. How does our sky zealot fare against a Viking? If a sky zealot can't take a Viking 1v1, then it will never be good against Vikings (since if it can't take a Viking 1v1, in an XvX situation, the vikings can act the same as they could in 1v1 - or they could focus fire, which works better). If a sky zealot can take a Viking 1v1, it must have high enough health to endure the Viking's attacks or high enough damage to lay on the hurt after it closes distance. Then, you add marines into the mix, and suddenly our flying zealot is either something which is so tanky that is really only useful as a tank - or it's so damage-heavy that it plays more like a scourge than it does like a zealot. Or maybe then you need to make flying sentries to support your flying zealots and at that point you begin to wonder - do we really want this after all?

Without specifics, all concepts aimed at good goals are good - but how do you know there exists an implementation that won't absolutely wreck the game? It comes through specifics and testing.

As much as I'd love the ideas being presented in this series if I knew they were tested and implemented in a way that led to a more dynamic an interesting game than what SC2 currently is, I don't see many reasons why I ought to believe that the game the OP is presenting is any better than the HotS being played in the beta.

Without specifics, everyone ought to like what the OP is going for. But also, without specifics, it's impossible to tell whether or not the OP's concepts are bad.

On October 16 2012 03:39 zlefin wrote:
actually Jerm, several units from other races did receive buffs in SC2; what's a buff depends in part on what you use a baseline, but for some of them it's very clear they were buffed.
The only truly nerfed units was the zergling, because their stats would be obscenely good with better pathing and unit selection in sc2.

On October 16 2012 03:06 Jermstuddog wrote:
Part of this intricate "parts of the greater machine" theory that made Terran so interesting in BW was that all their units sucked and were barely useable, but combined, the whole was far greater than the parts.

In SC2, Terran largely retains this interdependence between the various units, but some of those units got upwards of a 30% hp bonus.

What I want for Terran is to see their health go down, and not in the spiteful "terran is OP" sort of way, but just from the viewership perspective, I am rarely impressed with SC2 Terran play compared to BW.

What once was a beautiful orchestra of interworking parts has been reduced to a stim-and-attack race.

Terrans biggest problem is their units got better, unlike the other races.

On October 16 2012 03:52 Treehead wrote:


Maybe I haven't been watching the "stim-and-attack" TvZ games that you have, but the games I've been watching are largely based around interplay between a bunch of different units. Colossi and HTs both only have one unit designed to be able to deal with them, and the micro involved with those units often differentiates a win from a loss. In TvZ, from what I've spectated (by no means an expert here), it felt like the same kinda deal - broodlords without Vikings, or Infestors without ghosts or banelings without tanks, etc. feels very fragile.

Am I missing something that you're saying?

I stoped reading after first sentence.

If you decide to add wings to a zealot, you do not do so for the sake of adding wings to the zealot, you do it because you have a purpose in doing so. Oracle process is the same : people think they can add whatever spell they want. Wrong ! The unit has a purpose, and must serve this purpose. So the first sentence should not be : we want to add wings to our zealot. It should be : what do we want our zealot to be AS A UNIT, and not, dont get me wrong, what do we want our zealot do. In fact, if you begin with the latter, you are already one step under, that is, you design a unit with no clear direction, that can't allow you to discriminate anything that could be add to it.
So, you will never want your zealot to fly, unless you have decided (what blizzard did), taking it all from the start (what different kind of evironment our units should be able to move into ? Say : ground, air, and secret dimension !), that some units are going to be able to fly. But, if you do so, the next step is : ok, now that i have flying units, what kind of role could they have ?

I'am fully aware that this is pure theory and that often ideas come BEFORE theory. Though the OP made it clear that he had IDEAS and that's from those ideas that he derived the units, because it's precisely how it's supposed to work !

Actually, no. The concept are bad, if, and only if, they can't fit the identity. Wheter it's possible or not to implement them does not affect the concept, which is only, and I insist, only consistent compared to another concept. What you say is that numbers can show than there is impossible contradiction than make the implementation impossible. I don't see how since you can't (sorry, it's also my case ^^) foresee what will happen with testing, since you must consider one implementation at a time, which is precisely not to do (and explains why blizzard needs a beta with all units running at the same time).

Well, you can't. It's up to you to decide if HotS' units philosophy is better than the one of the OP. It's concept against concept, not numbers vs concept (you can't compare wha'ts not homogeneous).

On October 16 2012 03:59 Jermstuddog wrote:


So, the games you're watching DON'T involve Terran throwing away massive amounts of bio all game long?

I guess I'd like to see these games, because, the games I'm watching show that TvT has been stuck on Marine/Tank for 2 years, TvP revolves around trading away bio units for at least the first half of every game (with the core army never changing from MMM to anything else), and TvZ, being the only MU where mech appears even remotely viable, still has 50-80% of the army supply being made up by marines in at least 1/2 the pro games I see.

Maybe a little bit more than stim happens, but the Terran race is not nearly the work of art it once was.

On October 16 2012 04:14 zlefin wrote:
Jerm, you're wrong. zealot wasn't nerfed, and stalker is a bit of a remake, and has some significant advantages/disadvantages vs the dragoon.
mutalisks received a modest buff.
You've forgotten about the effects of the shield change to protoss I suspect.
I ain't disagreeing about marines being pretty strong now; but you don't seem to have all the figures right; and those figures matter a lot, which is why I keep insisting the original poster demonstrate he understands how firebats actually work.

On October 16 2012 04:33 Treehead wrote:


The games I'm waching of every matchup involve a lot of play using roach/ling/hydra or gateway units or terran bio for most of the game.

I don't see a problem with that. But like I said, I'm no TvZ expert. I thought it was pretty fun to watch though. When I watched Stephano vs. Taeja on Ohana (was it Dreamhack?) - I was completely entertained. There was a lot of bio, yes. But I never felt like Taeja was just "stimming and attacking".

On October 16 2012 05:11 zlefin wrote:
Jerm, if you use marines as a baseline, mutalisks got a 13% attack speed increase.

i ask you jerm, how many attacks does it take a firebat to kill a dragoon?
that's a nice stat to know, and since you claim to know your stats so well, i'd like you to demonstrate, just as i've asked of the OP.

On October 16 2012 03:06 Jermstuddog wrote:
This whole thread misses the biggest factor of the Terran army that was lost going from BW to SC2: squishiness.

In BW, Terran didn't have a single unit that would be considered "tank" by any means. Look at the unit stat comparisons real quick to see:

Marauders have 125hp compared to the Firebats 50hp, Marines 45/55 vs 40, Siege Tanks 160 vs 150, Hellions 90 vs Vultures 80, Medivacs 150 vs Medics 60, Thors 400 vs Goliaths 125.

This is a little discussed topic, but the facts are fairly evident: Terran got an across-the-board HP buff while the other races remain roughly the same or worse.

Part of this intricate "parts of the greater machine" theory that made Terran so interesting in BW was that all their units sucked and were barely useable, but combined, the whole was far greater than the parts.

In SC2, Terran largely retains this interdependence between the various units, but some of those units got upwards of a 30% hp bonus.

What I want for Terran is to see their health go down, and not in the spiteful "terran is OP" sort of way, but just from the viewership perspective, I am rarely impressed with SC2 Terran play compared to BW.

What once was a beautiful orchestra of interworking parts has been reduced to a stim-and-attack race.

Terrans biggest problem is their units got better, unlike the other races.

On October 16 2012 23:14 zlefin wrote:
it's actually going to be ~23 shots.
a firebat attack has 3 hits, the number of which hit varies based on positioning and the size of the target; and as with many splash weapons there's a 50% and 25% damage zone.
Against large targets the firebat will usually get in all 3 hits in the 100% zone.
Firebats don't ignore armor, but armor is subtracted before the % adjustment for weapon type vs target size is calculated;
so each hit part does 1.75, for a total of 5.25 per attack.
this also menas oddly enough, that 2 firebats attacking 1 dragoon, if neither side micros, is actually a pretty close battle.
This is why OP's way of displaying the stats is simply bad, it messes up the armor interaction with size frmo sc1, and fails to denote firebats actual damage.

On another note, zealots got a 5% attack sped increase in sc2, again if using marines as a baseline; so while they lost 10 shields, they did gain that. and the change in shield interaction rules means they aren't hurt as badly by anything doing explosive damage, which would be most analogous to the anti-armor damage in sc2; so zealots weren't nerfed, they're about the same. while charge may nto be quite as good as zealot speed boost, improvements in pathing rules do maek it much easier for melee to saturate on an opponent and avoids single file syndrome.

While I agree wtih many of your conclusions and unit quality assessments, you don't know the figures and underlying math of the game nearly as well as you think you do. Understanding all these details is a real help in trying to balance the game and in mathematically modeelling the underlying behavior.

On October 14 2012 12:20 YyapSsap wrote:


SC2 needs... MOVING SHOT!!!

Cant believe they took it out. LIke you glide in, fire your missiles/attacks off while gliding back. That made wraith micro so beautiful to watch.

And to the OP. Excellent as usual! Seriously, the game would be SO much more interesting with those changes. One more thing to add to the raven is how HSMs work. They are far too binary (either lots of explosions including the death of the ravens) or nothing. They should implement something like a damage over time, or deal damage after a timer HSM spell where both gives some sort of control to the opposing player to mitigate damage. Direct damage dealing abilities (especially AOE) should be avoided at all costs due to the binary nature of them.