|
On January 17 2013 22:05 Alex1Sun wrote:
I am not sure Terrans are at that much disadvantage. They can make additional units by replacing SVC with mules, freeing supply and simply building a bigger force. IMHO depending on the situation Terrans can balance Zerg and Protoss post-battle-production by mule-facilitated pre-battle-production and bigger army. I however agree that it depends on particular circumstances.
What about the all-round cannons for Protoss and, more to the point, spine/spore forests for Zerg?
Bunkers need supply so they can't be compared to this, turrets only hit air and planetaries are far too big to be useful in the same way spines/cannons are.
|
Terran basically can decide on 2 techs and has to stick with it. Getting the third tech forces a long transition time, because of the upgrades starting at 0/0 (0/3). The game is pretty depended on fighting 3/3 vs 3/3 or you won't stand a chance with those 0 attack units. In addition the cost for production structures is way to high. In a passive game it is possible, but other then that, it won't work.
As a result Terran has to be able to deal with everything the other races have from 2 production facilities. But with HotS Terrans will have it slightly better, with the shared armor upgrade. So they are a bit closer to the other races who also just have 5 upgrades.
The issue about Mech is Imo the need for Techlabs. Starport and Raks do fine with Reactors, but for proper Factory use you need a ton of techlabed ones. Which is quiet costly, compared to the cheap production facility costs everything else has. Hellbats and Widow mines solved this issue abit though.
|
Are we talking about design or balance here? Those two are very different when it comes to production as terrans have been doing great during WoL with out "bad" production mechanics. I'd agree on talking about general design but half this thread is terrans requesting nerfs for zerg and protoss without actual compensation which makes, at least in my opinion, for a really shitty conversation.
Just an example:
1. make the warp gate research happen later and more expensive, or
2. have a cost for converting each gateway into a warp gate.
However, this may not affect late game enough. To address late game, it may be necessary to increase cool down or even increase cost of warping in units. If P were to be allowed to have such great production capabilities, P should need to pay for this advantage.
Is this about balance or is it about design? This, to me, sounds more like balance whine instead of a design suggestion. When changing design one has to consider balance aswell. Seeing that protoss was the weakest race during WoL it's questionable if pure nerfs are justified. Balance compensation would be something like:
1. warp gate research later, faster basic production without
2. cheaper gateways, added cost for transforming them
Some suggested nerfing the cooldown on warpins to be longer than usual production. It should rather be swapping production time with warpin cooldown.
This game is balanced with protoss getting warp gate tech and building units at that speed. It is balanced balanced with protoss having warpin reinforcements during fights.
|
This is going off a tangent from OP's post. I'd like to see changes to P and Z rather than the design of Terran be changed, since I like how terran works.
Honestly, I'd rather see warpgates vs gateways be a decision, rather than just a mindless 'okay gateway's done, time to turn into warpgate.'
Gateway production should be faster than warpgate production, but warpgate gives you the advantage of faster reinforcements at the cost of a cooldown much longer than gateway production. Maybe like 20-40% longer between units from a warpgate than from a gateway is what I'm thinking. On the other hand you'd probably have to give some (minor) flat damage/health buffs to zealot/stalker in this situation, because gateway units are weak based off the design of warpgate.
Also you'd probably have to adjust transformation time. Maybe 10 seconds from gateway->warpgate, but 20 seconds from warpgate->gateway.
I can't say much about Z, but more abilities to 'snipe' larva are a good idea imo. Oracles can 1-shot them, and fungal/storms can kill them easily. It would be interesting to see what other ideas people can come up with killing larva as a harass technique, particularly for terran.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2013 19:06 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 11:39 IamTheArchitect wrote:On January 17 2013 08:17 Nezgar wrote:
I have to disagree on tech reactors. The techlab/reactor situation makes sure that there are decisions involved and taking away even more decisions from terrans makes for a terrible game imho. Those last few patches already got rid of siege tank upgrade, speed upgrade for reaper, techlab for reaper and, previously, armory for widow mines. It get's dangerously close to just building barracks/factory/starport and getting everything without adding more buildings or upgrades. Everything you do should be a decision carefully made, with benefits and drawbacks.
Warpgate reinforcements for example require either proxy pylon or a warp prism from a t2 building. Both require an investment and have risks to them. The game is balanced around protoss having warpins available and you shouldn't really complain that basic gateway units are a thing that threatens a terrans in the lategame. After the main armies have crashed into each other and their number is reduced to only a few, terran bio units with medivac support grow exponentially stronger. You can often watch that after the big battle when there is still a little bit of bio standing with just gateway units, it's almost always the terran who comes out ahead.
Besides, not having to look away during a fight in order to build new units is a huge benefit for non-professional gamers that should be taken into consideration aswell.
The risk of late late game techswitches is most prevalent in a TvZ game where both player are circling each other, too afraid to engage and sitting on a huge bank of ressources. It's the nature of the blord/infestor combination that causes those issues as they require very specific units to deal with them. You don't see this problem much in games where the zerg is playing muta/ling/bling or something similar. 1. Researching tech reactors (which at the fusion core would represent a gas investment of 300) WOULD BE a decision that Terran has to make. I think it's hypocritical to argue that Terran should remain with limiting choices while arguing that Protoss shouldn't have to make any choices regarding warp gates. Instead of putting that research into lategame, why not just build more production buildings earlier? You'd still have to pay, there are no balance problems, and the best thing: you can already do that and there's no need to hope for blizzard to implement it. The idea behind the techreactor just seems like an easy way out for terrans with bad macro. Look at all those other terrans spamming barracks and factories all over the place, making 12 marines, 4 medivacs and 5 tanks at a time. If I watch them play, I don't see many of the issues people state here. So it can't be that bad! Also, the discussion is really biased. Yeah, Zerg can produce out of every base every unit. But you kill one building and he can't anymore. And with drops, Terrans have a really good option to do that. Whats zerg answer? Build multiple tech buildings. Not an "infestation poolwarren". And Protoss have their issues with macro, too. But the answer shouldn't be a new building to solve it all, thats not the way this game works. The first question should always be "How can I play differently to solve this issue?" and not "How can blizzard solve this?", because if we always ask the latter, we will have WoW-style of patching. And we do have that too much already. I agree that Terran has some great issues in hots, but their way of producing stuff isn't one of them from my POV. EDIT: Made many mistakes there, lol
The mistake you're making here is that this isn't just a way to help terrans with "bad macro." One of the key problems (as other people have mentioned) is space. You often don't have enough room in main and natural for all the buildings you need. This means that in a late game situation where you and opponent are both harassing different sides of the map, they only stand to lose a mining base (and a nominal amount of production if zerg) while you stand to lose a mining base AND a lot of production. It massively increases the amount of stuff you have to defend.
Another problem is scale. Yes, in late game situations I build 4 or 5 more factories and starports and I can get 5 tanks building at once. The problem is that zerg can be making 20 ultralisks or 20 brood lords at once.
Lastly, in situations a little before the maxed out, huge resource bank scenario, gas efficiency can be a problem for Terran. In order to make a lot of gas-intensive (i.e. strong, supply efficient) units, you need to sink a lot of gas into production, whereas if you stick to mineral intensive barracks units, you always have way too much gas. Zerg infrastructure requires no gas at all besides tech buildings, while protoss can have a ton of gateways (only minerals) and get HT/DTs (gas intensive).
|
Adding tech reactor is unnecessary to be honest. Terrans can build more structures with the extra resources they get from mules and have reactors for low tech units. Mules can help them cut scvs and have bigger armies which is even better when it comes to engagement. They just need to handle stuff like protoss do with their robo and stargate which can only produce one unit at a time. If production speed proves to be a problem, a simple reduction of unit production time can be made to some units ( I wish they do that to the carrier). Generally speaking, production times should be tweaked if it proves to be a problem not to have similar production capabilities for all races. There is nothing to justify a reactor/techlab.
|
Seriously, guys. "Warp gate removes defender's advantage"? What are you people on? 3/3 bio with medivacs will annihilate four times its supply count of Protoss units not containing templar or colossi. You can trade your entire ground army for their AoE units, and one round of barracks production will easily solo everything they have left + everything they can warp in for the next minute.
|
On January 18 2013 04:32 Xequecal wrote:
Seriously, guys. "Warp gate removes defender's advantage"? What are you people on? 3/3 bio with medivacs will annihilate four times its supply count of Protoss units not containing templar or colossi. You can trade your entire ground army for their AoE units, and one round of barracks production will easily solo everything they have left + everything they can warp in for the next minute.
How often have you seen a protoss not going for colossus and/or HT against T?
HT are fantastic zone control units. A protoss will never opt to not use them against terran unless they manage to cripple him with colossus first. Terrans need ghosts to be able to deal with any protoss army right now aswell, but one wrong move and your ghosts are toast - And you wont be able to resupply all that quickly.
|
On January 18 2013 04:32 Xequecal wrote:
Seriously, guys. "Warp gate removes defender's advantage"? What are you people on? 3/3 bio with medivacs will annihilate four times its supply count of Protoss units not containing templar or colossi. You can trade your entire ground army for their AoE units, and one round of barracks production will easily solo everything they have left + everything they can warp in for the next minute.
So we're discussing Late Game Reinforcing, you provide an excellent point for midgame 2/2 timings but usually protoss unless they are going for Skytoss will usually be headed for collossus or blink stalkers on some maps. If Terrans were always fighting pure blink stalkers then I think this thread wouldn't exist. Templar are usually an additional response to bio play just due to how badly the clumping of bio units are. In the Late game scenario more people posting to this thread have in mind that protoss has a ground army with either collossi or templar or both.
The issue I think could also be solved if protoss wasn't to seige tank sniping. (blink stalkers, chargelots) because then the remax wouldn't feel so bad since the terran would have the means to survive wave after wave and still push after. This I feel however would be a harder adjustment than just increasing the cooldown/warpin time on warpgates with a slight decrease in build times on the regular gateway. This might also increase the feel for viability of the BattleCruiser, since right now in TvP it is sometimes gotten late late game but has the overall fear that once quick warp in of templar can cripple a fleet in seconds. This way a terran can move forward with his main army while transitioning to his BattleCruisers, try to force the warpin and then hopefully have the protoss warpin before seeing a BattleCruiser and then the BC will have a little while of superiority but not so much in a game breaking fashion since terran will only be able to build from the small number of starports so in this imaginary scenario I see max 3-4 BC's being produced one at a time. In the higher leagues it would probably only be 2 max to try the smoothest transition while keeping pressure.
For Zerg I read an interesting Idea that I lost track off (claim your credit friend) that depending on whether it is a hatchery, lair, or Hive then allows for higher larvae storage capabilities. that at a hatchery you can have max 16 larvae, a lair 24 larvae, and at a Hive the regular 32(?) larvae. Early game injects become more crucial and so does scouting but in the late game case this makes zerg players take the time to upgrade all their hatcheries to hold more larvae and makes bases more important to take and more importantly defend. So in the case of an enemy push out toward your 4th expo and a split force going after a higher tech lair at your 3rd you have to make the choice of how you're going to deal with it. if you need the larvae or the resources more. So Zerg will have that massive remax potential at the late game with 5 Hives, otherwise they need to plan out their larvae use more. This I also feel leaves the Zerg feeling swarm-ish, I mean what happens when you let wasps stay too long in your backyard?
And on the note of Terran ways to kill larvae the Nuke right now is the best option, especially if it also kills workers and hits the larvae of a nearby macro hatch. but simcity can fix most of that for zergs.
|
On January 18 2013 04:32 Xequecal wrote:
Seriously, guys. "Warp gate removes defender's advantage"? What are you people on? 3/3 bio with medivacs will annihilate four times its supply count of Protoss units not containing templar or colossi. You can trade your entire ground army for their AoE units, and one round of barracks production will easily solo everything they have left + everything they can warp in for the next minute.
Have you heard of these things called 3/3 zealots? They're pretty good at delaying bio until you have storms ready. FF can also delay. In a late game situation, several cannons at expos, especially combined with the above are very good.
Also what do you mean by trading protoss ground army for terran AOE units? When has that ever happened? If anything the reverse happens. T manages to kill the collossi but loses everything he has.
I hate to seem like a jerk, but you honestly seem like you have no idea how this matchup works.
|
On January 18 2013 00:00 FeyFey wrote:
Terran basically can decide on 2 techs and has to stick with it. Getting the third tech forces a long transition time, because of the upgrades starting at 0/0 (0/3). The game is pretty depended on fighting 3/3 vs 3/3 or you won't stand a chance with those 0 attack units. In addition the cost for production structures is way to high. In a passive game it is possible, but other then that, it won't work.
you realize that both zerg and protoss also have seperate upgrades for Air are you?
|
On January 17 2013 23:47 ChromeBallz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 22:05 Alex1Sun wrote:
I am not sure Terrans are at that much disadvantage. They can make additional units by replacing SVC with mules, freeing supply and simply building a bigger force. IMHO depending on the situation Terrans can balance Zerg and Protoss post-battle-production by mule-facilitated pre-battle-production and bigger army. I however agree that it depends on particular circumstances. What about the all-round cannons for Protoss and, more to the point, spine/spore forests for Zerg? Bunkers need supply so they can't be compared to this, turrets only hit air and planetaries are far too big to be useful in the same way spines/cannons are.
What about MULES, flying buildings, Scans, wall ins early to deny scouting, Drop Ships that also heal, etc, etc,etc?
All races have different strengths and weaknesses.
Also Terran has map control at least vs P so no anti ground static defense is needed and Missile Turrets are way better than spores/Cannons vs air
|
Posting this production incapabilities seems true at the very initial core of it. (I'm Protoss and will be talking TvP exclusively)
Overall though many facts of that production isn't exactly the fact. Looking blanky at the production capabilities is hiding much of the power coming from what lies behind it. Especially TvP the terran's production may seem less powerful because of the warp gate function but that simply is not true.
Why is that? Well, Terran production on equal bases is running at roughly a 30% higher capacity than that of its counter part races. THEREFORE you have about 300 minerals per minute that you are using. Now of course things come into play such as upgrades and whatnot. But the core of the matter is money you are spending on units is more per minute than your opponent if on equal setting.
SECONDLY. Protoss production capabilities are different for its tiers of units. The way protoss power works is from its beefy units. ESPECIALLY in HOTS. Long gone are the days where protoss could get by with gateway units only. Therefore to supplement the power of this protoss has been forced to make high tier units more. This means, stargate robo is a 2/3 base build. Double robo and double stargate are all viable. This means that we highly rely upon these units. Now thinking about this...Protoss production facilities generally cost more than anyone else's. So we are spending more just to get these units out. So while terran is running at 130% Production off of 1 mineral line. Protoss run below 100% until our production is up and going.
Even relying upon this more. Protoss's reliance upon these units is super high. With the death of these units our ability to attack are nearly gone. (exception to warp prisms and harrassing things) Simply put if we can't produce and get up to our 100% ideal productivity we simply cannot attack and win the game vs T. So keeping that in mind below I will post some key facts for terran in TvP.
1) Terran mules allow the terran to run on a higher Mineral per minute rate and therefore can produce only units for effectively than other races on equal number of bases.
2) Terran reliance upon higher tier units allows for there army to be more flexible (even though the production buildings don't seem flexible) than the other races. (I believe to win any game a terran should just master production facility numbers and combinations)
3) Protoss's relance upon high tier units to win at any given point in time make the flexibilty of protoss production facilities to be more streamlined and important.
TLDR: You drop 2 medivacs in my base full of bio and quickly take out robo pylon before collosus tech. We lose with our gateway units almost always.
|
On January 17 2013 07:06 IamTheArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 06:16 Soular wrote:
The warpgate mechanic shouldn't be removed but there should be a higher penalty for being able to just make units appear away from your base. Longer cooldowns or warp ins could be the best fix. there are some who have advocated "connected" and "disconnected" pylons, some for warp ins others just for power kind of deal but i think that's too complex for a structure that is supply oriented. Punishing warpgate but not removing makes Protoss players still research warpgate for harrass purposes or for a quick remax for the final blow or defense but the cooldown penalty would ensure that using 2 warp ins in a row aren't the reason players are losing to protoss. This then would make the protoss change their warpgates into gateways and operate a better reinforcing scheme. It doesn't do much to improve micro but it does raise the skill ceiling a bit.
zergs are trickier to mess with because the very design of the race it to basically throw away units. Maybe decreasing inject larvae by 2 larvae would have the desired effect but the over all desire is to hold off hordes of zerg. When I started playing I chose zerg because I wanted to command an almost never ending onslaught attacking forifications. (this is not advocating weaking zerg hitpoints) Ultimately zerg's tech switch and instant remax is a little harder to deal with. You could already kinda deal with it by constant drops and targetting Queens to prevent Injects. I also believe Nukes kill all larvae in the target area. so Igniting Afterburnners, dropping off a cloaked ghost and nuking a hatchery is still strong in that case. It is resource and apm expensive. If someone has thoughts on killing the zerg instant max without killing how we all know and love" zerg play please reply.
. I think it does make sense as an alternative to make warp gate cooldown longer so that Protoss players actually have to make a choice between gateways and warp gates, rather than have warp gates be better in every way except that you have to look at the power field to make units. As for zerg, I don't think messing with injects is the right way to go. Zerg should have a lot of units. The fundamental problem is that their late game compositions are too cost efficient. This should be fixed by looking at infestors, not the larva mechanic. It doesn't make sense that zerg is the mobile race that can take lots of expansions AND has the most cost effective and difficult to kill late game army. The price for being to take more bases should be cost inefficiency.
zerg does not have the most cost effective late game army, if anything in HotS they have the least. try going up against skytoss with zerg and tell me you're units are cost effective. you can literally throw 3 maxed armies at the protoss and he'll beat them all with MINIMAL reinforcments....and if he focus' your overseers you auto lose. you can't keep making mass overseer as zerg while remaxing on gas intensive anti air units
|
Personally I think what's really ruining the game are Zerglings. They give the Zerg a fast mobile unit that can easily control the map in the early game and ruin your economy with one lucky run by. As a result, Zerg is almost always a base ahead of their opponent because they don't have to build any units until you move out to attack, which they'll see because they only have to build a couple Zerglings and can have control of all the watchtowers. Meanwhile the other races are stuck worrying about their wall-off, and have no idea what's going on. It's a silly a-move unit that requires no skill whatsoever. All of these problems could be solved if Blizzard just got rid of the stupid unit. While we're at it, let's get rid of those pesky Corruptors. Mutalisks are good enough against Vikings to protect the OP Brood Lords anyways.
|
United States7483 Posts
I would be okay with an upgrade on the Fusion Core that makes reactors decrease the building time required to produce units in the building it is attached to.
To be frank though, I feel like terran players don't add on enough production in the late game. It's not unusual to see a protoss player go up to 30 gateways in the lategame, but you rarely see a terran with more than 15 barracks regardless of how long the game goes.
|
You are essentially complaining about what makes different races, well, different. Yeah T has the least explosive reinforcement capability in the SC2 universe. So? You get strong buildings, cheap and fast-building defensive structures, emergency map hack, and mules. Add-on swapping is also an obvious help, which can be used strategically as well as to boost production for certain units.
So you feel like those are not enough? Guess what. Other races feel the same. P would love to give T zealot charge in exchange of stimpack. Z would gladly trade roaches for marauders. Deal?
|
On January 19 2013 12:51 usethis2 wrote:
You are essentially complaining about what makes different races, well, different. Yeah T has the least explosive reinforcement capability in the SC2 universe. So? You get strong buildings, cheap and fast-building defensive structures, emergency map hack, and mules. Add-on swapping is also an obvious help, which can be used strategically as well as to boost production for certain units.
So you feel like those are not enough? Guess what. Other races feel the same. P would love to give T zealot charge in exchange of stimpack. Z would gladly trade roaches for marauders. Deal?
He is essentially complaining about having to assume the reactionary role with the least flexible race in the game. Asymmetry is not justified without balance. How many games do you see ending with marauders rolling over roaches and how many are won by instant remaxes and tech switches?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
