|
On April 05 2010 02:27 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2010 02:11 MeProU_Kor wrote:On April 05 2010 02:01 Half wrote:
I think an elegant solution is to switch the roles of the void ray and the banshee, minus the cloaking. The banshee is now relatively weak niche unit specializing in taking out buildings and taking advantage of lack of AA (makes sense with cloak too), dieing quickly to any AA at all (Effective against masses of light units, hardcountered by stalkers, parralelling the void ray being hardcountered by marines), while the voidray can now hold its own as a powerful ATG unit and doesn't die in two shots to marines, and requires a signficant tech switch in order to kill.
The voidray can basically be the same thing except be less strong versus armored and less suck versus bio, and have a lower target switching time. The banshee fires "cluster missles" which are good versus masses of light units, and buildings (Because all the cluster missles will hit it due to sheer size).
Marauders don't attack air. so you want to take the (imo) 2nd most used T unit away to make the most used unit less usedand for exchange you give a unit that sucks against all unarmored (T1) units? sounds really stupid and makes no sense. Yes. How is it stupid? Terran have never really been about air superiority anyway. SC1 had protoss and zerglings with strong air, mutas and corsairs, with terran the worst, wraiths having a very niche role in special openings to hunt overlords. It would hugely discourage massing only marauder if the voidray got the relative strength of a banshee, able to hold its own against marines. Every other unit except the maraunder (and banshee I guess) would see more use.
so your argument is "Terran sucked with airunits in sc1 so they need to suck with airunits in sc2"
do i understand it right?
no you wont see every other units used more, because this 2 units are terran key units. the banshees is a superior (the only one?) harassment tool and can be mixed into the main army in small numbers and the marauder is the main part of the terran army (like hydras/goons/marines in sc1 for example). terran has enough useless units (hellion/reaper after 2min mark/thor) and there is no need to get one more (void ray). as a protoss i know how useless the void ray is. yes its a good idea to get a banshee and give away a void ray, but it wouldnt balance anything. it would just make terrans switch to Z or P.
in TvP lategame you see Marines/Marauders/Medivacs/Ghosts/Vikings/Ravens/Banshees
in TvZ lategame you see Marines/Marauders/Medivacs/Thors(?)/Vikings/Ravens/Banshees/hellions(?)
so you see enough units, its just that marauders are most used because they are the strongest GtG unit that T has + cost effective is. with taking away the banshee you would just see more marauders + more vikings and a terran with much less openings.
|
On April 05 2010 03:10 MeProU_Kor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2010 02:27 Half wrote:On April 05 2010 02:11 MeProU_Kor wrote:On April 05 2010 02:01 Half wrote:
I think an elegant solution is to switch the roles of the void ray and the banshee, minus the cloaking. The banshee is now relatively weak niche unit specializing in taking out buildings and taking advantage of lack of AA (makes sense with cloak too), dieing quickly to any AA at all (Effective against masses of light units, hardcountered by stalkers, parralelling the void ray being hardcountered by marines), while the voidray can now hold its own as a powerful ATG unit and doesn't die in two shots to marines, and requires a signficant tech switch in order to kill.
The voidray can basically be the same thing except be less strong versus armored and less suck versus bio, and have a lower target switching time. The banshee fires "cluster missles" which are good versus masses of light units, and buildings (Because all the cluster missles will hit it due to sheer size).
Marauders don't attack air. so you want to take the (imo) 2nd most used T unit away to make the most used unit less usedand for exchange you give a unit that sucks against all unarmored (T1) units? sounds really stupid and makes no sense. Yes. How is it stupid? Terran have never really been about air superiority anyway. SC1 had protoss and zerglings with strong air, mutas and corsairs, with terran the worst, wraiths having a very niche role in special openings to hunt overlords. It would hugely discourage massing only marauder if the voidray got the relative strength of a banshee, able to hold its own against marines. Every other unit except the maraunder (and banshee I guess) would see more use. so your argument is "Terran sucked with airunits in sc1 so they need to suck with airunits in sc2" do i understand it right? no you wont see every other units used more, because this 2 units are terran key units. the banshees is a superior (the only one?) harassment tool and can be mixed into the main army in small numbers and the marauder is the main part of the terran army (like hydras/goons/marines in sc1 for example). terran has enough useless units (hellion/reaper after 2min mark/thor) and there is no need to get one more (void ray). as a protoss i know how useless the void ray is. yes its a good idea to get a banshee and give away a void ray, but it wouldnt balance anything. it would just make terrans switch to Z or P. in TvP lategame you see Marines/Marauders/Medivacs/Ghosts/Vikings/Ravens/Banshees in TvZ lategame you see Marines/Marauders/Medivacs/Thors(?)/Vikings/Ravens/Banshees/hellions(?) so you see enough units, its just that marauders are most used because they are the strongest GtG unit that T has + cost effective is. with taking away the banshee you would just see more marauders + more vikings and a terran with much less openings.
Who uses Thors??
|
On April 05 2010 02:10 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2010 02:04 Zato-1 wrote:What's missing from the equation, IMO, is the suggestion I made in this thread: make the marauders' attacks root them in place for the duration of their attack cooldown. If you give marauders a move command after an attack, this would make them start moving only when their next attack is ready- they'd have to sacrifice damage in exchange for mobility. Add zealot charge and protoss might be able to tackle mass marauders (against bigger numbers, add psi storm / colossi). hate that in evry way. we need more stuff that can be microed nicely and not make micro even less appealing/possible. there is enough stupid "aclick and watch how the battle goes" anyways in sc2. this would only make it worse. not to mention HEAVILY nerf T vs zerg esp early game.
Fine, so buff something else in the Terran arsenal. They're too marauder-heavy atm, so nerfing marauders and buffing something else sounds logical, no?
|
since patch i thought it would make sense to build 1-2 againts mutas, thats why i put the question mark behind it + the hellion. i thought they are used in specifically cases in small numbers.
|
Imagine if Marauders were removed, and the entire race re-balanced.
300% more exciting? I garauntee it. Same with roaches, but at least they've been nerfed.
|
It is important for the units to remain unique and not be homogenized. It seems to be the consensus that Marauders, Roaches, and Immortals are too strong and I would agree with that. However, removing their unique abilities is not the answer. Don't let all three of these units become generic ranged RTS units. I don't know the appropriate way to reduce the strength of Marauder and Immortal but here is what I think for Roaches:
Double the supply cost to 2. Zerg 200/200 is too strong.
Reduce their HP and possibly armor but increase their regeneration rate. Remember in the battle report where these were first introduced they could barely be killed they would regen so fast? Obviously we don't want to take it that far but this unit is too generic atm. Try to get the overall survivability about where it is now but more oriented towards regeneration than starting hit points. Ideally this would make them weaker against siege tanks and about the same strength against infantry. They would do better against Marauder kiting as well with this change.
Also as a side note burrow-move should be moved to tier 3 or should have an animation cast-time like lurker burrow.
|
On April 05 2010 03:21 MeProU_Kor wrote:
since patch i thought it would make sense to build 1-2 againts mutas, thats why i put the question mark behind it + the hellion. i thought they are used in specifically cases in small numbers.
I think u dont get the point what most people are trying to say. As Morrow said its a winnable strategy to build 9 rax and pump pure Maradeurs. The idea of having one unit which can alone win the game in pro level is ridiculous by itself. It's not how rts (starcraft if u wanna) should be played.
And it doesn't matter if some terran builds other units. In fact that means terrans are not so hopeless without maradeurs.
|
On April 05 2010 03:18 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2010 02:10 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2010 02:04 Zato-1 wrote:What's missing from the equation, IMO, is the suggestion I made in this thread: make the marauders' attacks root them in place for the duration of their attack cooldown. If you give marauders a move command after an attack, this would make them start moving only when their next attack is ready- they'd have to sacrifice damage in exchange for mobility. Add zealot charge and protoss might be able to tackle mass marauders (against bigger numbers, add psi storm / colossi). hate that in evry way. we need more stuff that can be microed nicely and not make micro even less appealing/possible. there is enough stupid "aclick and watch how the battle goes" anyways in sc2. this would only make it worse. not to mention HEAVILY nerf T vs zerg esp early game. Fine, so buff something else in the Terran arsenal. They're too marauder-heavy atm, so nerfing marauders and buffing something else sounds logical, no?
but nerfing by making em boring to play and UNpossible to micro is the worst way.
also i still dont think you can change anything about the marauder without overhauling blizzards whole concept. i agree that it has to be done kind of but on a larger picture then just "lets nerf marauder/roach hp and immortal dmg and we are fine!".
first step would be to totally overhaul Z giving them more options and units while nerfing/changing/deleting the roach. after that we can change marauders/immortals also.
|
The best thing to do for marauders is make the things that counter them acc counter them make zealots and Zerglings immune to slow and its fixed. Effects early game like it should where the marauders are op cause they have no counters. But yet does not effect late game like it shouldn't cause it evens out in late game. Zealot charge speedlings anyways.
Change Range, dmg, cost, take away stim or make slow research would all effect them in late game or not fix the problem. None are really a good idea.
Quick and simple make the units that counter them counter them.
Also could toss 5 sec onto build time and remove the reacter nerf from 50 back down to 25. But if they don't remove or reduce the reactor nerf need to keep them at 30
Oh also stalkers are fine VS marauders. Marauders are the counter to stalkers so ya.
|
On April 05 2010 02:37 Louder wrote:Also once you have charge I can't outmicro shit with marauders  And you greatly overhype medivacs - they run out of energy ridiculously fast, and recharge painfully slowly.
Erm. I can outmicro zealots with charge using stimmed marauders just fine, and I'm not a very good terran user myself. Maybe you're doing something wrong?
|
On April 05 2010 03:48 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2010 02:37 Louder wrote:Also once you have charge I can't outmicro shit with marauders And you greatly overhype medivacs - they run out of energy ridiculously fast, and recharge painfully slowly. Erm. I can outmicro zealots with charge using stimmed marauders just fine, and I'm not a very good terran user myself. Maybe you're doing something wrong?
When ever you run into somone with good micro that Focus fires the medvacs its killer : / fucking big floating targe : (
|
On April 05 2010 02:26 bt-scubasteve wrote:
Just curious what the OP's point of this thread is. I see that you are saying that terrans are forced into rauders and this leads to a very unexciting game. If this is the case then I think 90% of the replies are off base with the, 'slow effect is OP' and 'take away stim' type of comments.
This is exactly correct. What a painful thread this was to read, and all because most of the posts only address this arbitrary "how Marauders need to be nerfed" idea. If Protoss had viable air vs ground, all we'd be talking about is how utterly impossible to play TvP is. As it is, the 1base Immortal timing push is impossible to stop without at least two well placed EMP shots and a sizable bio force. It's not as if Marauders themselves completely overpower the entire matchup. The issue is that other than Marauders and Ghosts, Terran units are largely ineffective in TvP.
The only good idea I'm seeing here is that the problem is simply +armored units. They are indeed too strong all around, and it's not because these units counter higher tech units (if Marauders couldn't kill Colossi as quickly as they do when they get in range...). It's because the vast majority of these units are strong armored units themselves, and can take quite a beating from light units. To this point, they hold their own against light units, while countering other armored units. This presents a situation where you're basically forced to make them to have any chance at all.
To add to this issue, +armored units - Immortals and Marauders especially - kill buildings way too fast. Static defense vs protoss especially is a joke.
|
On April 05 2010 03:06 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2010 03:03 pieisamazing wrote:On April 05 2010 03:01 Rothbardian wrote:On April 05 2010 02:53 pieisamazing wrote:
Give marauders 3 or 3.5 or 4 range instead of 6. They can keep the slow, but the reduced range would cut down their power when used en masse, especially against infantry. I haven't played against tanks very much, but they are pretty devastating against zerg, so I'm just putting that out there in case people decide to argue, "if marines and marauders both have less range than hydras we will get raped by fungal growth and hydra armies!!" I think making the range shorter would give the terran army more diversity (although, I'll concede that zerg also suffers from much of the same stigma; but that's another topic). Tanks suck ass against Zerg. Try using Mech against a competent Zerg, and watch him take half the map and come busting you down with 70 Roaches. Yeah, you can't a-move your tanks into their army. Use some positioning. What the fuck kind of statement is that? Do you just assume everyone you are talking to is a copper/E- player? How about you play Terran and play the top players and show me how its done. Until then, stop theorycrafting. If you nerf Marauders and don't buff Tanks in response, Roaches will be way too powerful against Terran. Also, you can't move out as Terran until you get Ravens, because of Roach burrow. So if you play Mech you are stuck inside your base and have to rely on Hellion for harass, which, on many maps sucks ass because 2-3 roaches can block ramps.
Calm down, nerd. It was a suggestion, and you decided to be a condescending prick from the get-go. From your statements, you actually DO seem like a copper/E- player. Or twelve years old. Or both.
Try some constructive criticism or some nice discussion, if you're not incapable of that as your responses suggest.
|
And why do people that don't have have a key post balance proposals (or in this forum at all)? Oh well.
Must be said, only problem I have with TL.net sc2 forum is I really have to only read 300+ post people. Too much "X unit is imba, this is what I think blizzard should do to change it". How about, "x unit kills me, here is a replay, please give me suggestions on how to handle this." Then later on after many replays have been posted and there is sufficient empirical evidence to support X unit being IMBA, then such claims can be made.
Let's stick to the OP, terran is forced into rauders making them boring (like roaches).
|
I was always mad at how the lore states tanks "got more armor" and have ways to "deal with units inside its siege range" which would "justify the extra cost", except they have the same HP/Armor and they still have nothing to deal with things inside its siege range. And now they cost 3 supply and 100 more resources. Seriously, they need to buff mech so much right now, with tanks costing so much more than in SC1 and hellions basically being useless against anything other than workers and zerglings. Instead of nerfing marauders, they should consider buffing other aspects of terran so that other strategies are viable.
|
On April 05 2010 03:29 hellitsaboutme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2010 03:21 MeProU_Kor wrote:
since patch i thought it would make sense to build 1-2 againts mutas, thats why i put the question mark behind it + the hellion. i thought they are used in specifically cases in small numbers. I think u dont get the point what most people are trying to say. As Morrow said its a winnable strategy to build 9 rax and pump pure Maradeurs. The idea of having one unit which can alone win the game in pro level is ridiculous by itself. It's not how rts (starcraft if u wanna) should be played. And it doesn't matter if some terran builds other units. In fact that means terrans are not so hopeless without maradeurs.
i get the point, but its just wrong. if it would be so easy to win with that single unit why has morrow such a bad record for example? why did goody managed to win 3:0 5mins ago in the zotac finals and how do marauders win agains hydra/linge or any AtG unit.
believe it or not, marauders need support like every other unit too...
|
New poster, long time reader.
For all these people suggesting that terran mech needs a buff, I can understand the sentiment a bit against toss where the armies are both so mobile but have you seen what mech does to a zerg ground army? its disturbing how quickly hydra/roach/ling evaporates to hellions/tanks. Just my 2 cents.
|
Welcome Jeuh, thanks for joining us!
|
I don't think you understand chrono boost correctly. Stalker is 42 without chrono, 30 with. Immortal is 40 without, 28 with. It's not 50% reduced build time, it's 50% increased building speed, AKA 25% reduced build time.
I even tested this in a custom game. The build time for stalkers was 42 seconds and 30 with chrono (no idea why there's the 2 second discrepancy). The build time for immortals was 40 seconds and 28 with chrono.
Please fix this in the OP, you're making it seem like protoss could get out a stalker in a reasonable about of time in comparison to the marauder.
|
On April 05 2010 04:14 -orb- wrote:
I don't think you understand chrono boost correctly. Stalker is 42 without chrono, 30 with. Immortal is 40 without, 28 with. It's not 50% reduced build time, it's 50% increased building speed, AKA 25% reduced build time.
I even tested this in a custom game. The build time for stalkers was 42 seconds and 30 with chrono (no idea why there's the 2 second discrepancy). The build time for immortals was 40 seconds and 28 with chrono.
Please fix this in the OP, you're making it seem like protoss could get out a stalker in a reasonable about of time in comparison to the marauder.
50% faster means 33.(3)% less buildtime, not 25%.
Having units build 100% faster results in 50% buildtime, but simply halving the speed % will not give you the right result in any other case, the most obvious example would be that 200% faster build speed will not result in 100% lower buildtime, i.e. no buildtime at all.
42 / 1.5 = 28
40 / 1.5 = 26.(6)
Stalker cooldown is 32 seconds or 32 / 1.5 = 21.(3) with chrono boost, so the difference after toss gets warpgates is pretty small.
Additionally, Marauder build time is 30 seconds, not 33.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
