|
On May 10 2010 01:24 FrozenArbiter wrote:
The unforgiving nature of T wasn't really present in SC1... I mean, sort of yes, but because of how high ground worked and how strong tanks were you had way more room for sick come backs and such.
In SC1 you also didnt have the tight balls of infantry moving and attacking together. This allowed Tanks to fire many more shots and actually scare off the opponent. For SC2 they kept the basic stats of the tank almost the same (while making it more expensive), but we now have the perfect movement AI and thus the sieged tank can be happy if he can fire two shots before the ball of infantry kills it. This is the actual reason why tanks are somewhat less useful than in SC1.
On May 10 2010 00:51 MorroW wrote:
ok so we agree toss is easier to play than terran. but its also better than terran
i think most of us would agree we shouldnt make the game any easier, so the logical way to look at it would be to make toss harder race to play
now heres a few examples:
1: remove the global select warpgate key because why should toss has a global key like this when terrans and zergs must hotkey their production facilities..?
2: give warpgate and gateway some kind of dilemma in decision. for t its a big choice to go reactor or tech lab in our bos but its different story with warp gate. the only time toss doesnt get warp gate early game is when he make void ray.
so now we could make the gateway better, warpgate worse or make the upgrade cost more. that it costs much time (this is what blizzard chose) doesnt make any questions if u want it or not, it just makes it later but definitely something u want.
what makes the reactor so hard for terran is that it takes so long time but with good reward later on in the game, so why not just make the gateway switch take lets say 20 seconds instead of 5? its not a big change but it definetly raises some questions for toss like "is it worth it right now, can i survive during this swap" just like terran asks when he builds the reactor.
now this would probably make toss pretty weak to stuff like 4rax on 1base or massunit gogo so then secondly we would probably want to make so normal gateways produce quicker maybe?
these r just some examples but my main point is that i think a great way to make toss harder
would be to create more strategical choices such as between gateway and warpgate in the early stages. late game you will always want the warpgate and im fine with that because u always want the reactor for terran lategame rather than keeping it addon-less
ill give another example
3: u could change the storm to cost 100 and emp to 100 and give them bigger radius. then toss has to plan and prepare his attacks and have high templars at his expansions before terran attack. right now toss can just defend by making a few cannons and then just warping in hts and storming everywhere, its a very simple task because u dont need any timing. ive never seen any warpinstorms in pvz so i dont see how this would make anything worse for that mu.
id love it if blizzard worked more on the protoss strategy when it comes to macro and timing rather than just unit counters and compositions
Personally I think the real reason why Protoss is easier to play is the Warpgate mechanic and the fact that most of the Protoss units come out of one building. Terrans are screwed when they want to switch from infantry to mech or air, because they have to build LOTS of new buildings AND the correct add-ons. So in effect you have to build two buildings, because you will have to keep pumping units from your barracks with add-ons to defend.
Now for the topics Morrow mentioned:
1. This should be a no-brainer to fix, because it is clearly an advantage.
2. The big boost for Protoss is chrono boost and the fact that it can be used on Warp Gates. Both speed boosts cumulating with each other is a bit much IMO and the ability to warp in wherever you want should be enough. To give a Protoss something to choose from the logic should be like this: Gateway + Chronoboost = slightly faster than Warp Gate + cooldown.
3. I like the idea of big radius for area attacks, but it should not stop at spells but also be done for the Siege tank. That way a handful of tanks should be able to defend a base against Zerg and Protoss forces who are much more mobile. Giving Terran buildings more defense - by giving them more than one +2 armor upgrade for buildings - would be another way to revive the classic Terran turtle style. It would not be there for early rushes, but from mid- to late-game you could be more protected against attacks than at the start ... forcing opponents to get the "big hitters" instead of the swarming little ones.
The thing is that the three races *should* have a different playing style and at the moment Terrans are played as aggressive as the other two. I dont think that works well because Terrans actually have "structural disadvantages" from the number of upgrades and the number of buildings they need.
|
On May 09 2010 11:21 ghostnuke1234 wrote:
I hope it gets to the point where they are winning 33% - that is a sign of balance at the top level.
You realize that even if they are not winning at 33% that doesn't mean its unbalanced.
|
Why not have different units come out of the gateway? something like DT's and Zealots or Zealot Stalker out of Gateway and the other two units out of warpgate? then Toss really needs to make a decision of the timing of the warpgate upgrade, as well as how many Gateways vs. warpgates in terms of army composition. I think that change might change the race a little too much for what Blizzard wants to do, but I don't see how it would directly harm the race, in terms of fending off early pressure, and it would force them to make a decision similar to the Tech Lab vs. Reactor dilemma that Terran has, and the power drones vs. units dilemma that zerg has.
Or, they could make it so that Warp gates actually take longer to build units/ longer cooldown time, meaning that pumping units out of a getway would be faster, but the tradeoff being that they can warp in anywhere where there is a pylon.
Right now, as a toss player you're basically stupid if you don't only build warpgates. It's basically a direct upgrade, when it should be that both are viable, but with different abilities.
|
Btw (I haven't seen anyone doing this), if you want to get the most production out of the fewest gateways you have to be constantly swapping them back and forth between gateways and warpgates.
Changing from gateway -> warpgate -> gateway (or vice-versa) takes 13 game-seconds. Let's look at producing 2 zealots. You first make a zealot out of your warpgate and get a 23 second cooldown, then you immediately change to a gateway and start a zealot, then change back to a warpgate. Zealots take 33 seconds to build, plus the 13 second transformation time -> you get 2 zealots and an off-cooldown warpgate in 46 seconds. With one warpgate NOT transforming, you get 2 zealots and an off-cooldown warpgate in ... 46 seconds. Okay, so it doesn't help here.
At the other extreme you have producing 2 templar: warp one in, then gateway queue one, you get 2 in 68 seconds instead of 2 in 90 seconds. (edit: er whoops, used the wrong cooldown for warpgates)
Best case is warping in a templar and then gateway-producing a Zealot. The Templar has a 45 second warp in cooldown, the zealot takes 33 seconds to build plus 13 seconds of transformation -> 46 seconds. You get a free zealot's worth of production for every templar you make.
Depending on what you're making this is as much or more of a production speed boost than Chrono Boost is (but of course you can Chrono on top of this for even more production speed).
(Note that I don't actually do this myself because it's ridiculously APM-intensive to actually make it better than just building more warpgates. But I think it's worth mention for players who are better than me).
Edited to fix up some numbers from me being an idiot and using the wrong cooldowns for warpgates.
|
I don't think Protoss is easier to play than Terran because of the mechanics, but because of the way you play the different races and the BO's:
Terran always was the race which required very high APM, good Multitasking and Macro, that's stuff good Terran players can adapt to and that's why good mechanical players choose to play Terran, at least to a certain extent. But this has been rewarded by the possibilities of strong, macro-oriented and mechanically demanding builds, whereas Protoss had to be creative to win, be good at countering timing-pushes etc.
In SC2, it's a totally different story: Terran is still harder to play mechanically than Protoss, but Terran has a hard time defending against rushes, it's hard to get into "macromode" with them and Protoss is the one with the very strong timing-attacks.
Terran Defense:
Atm, T is IMHO the worst race at playing a defensive macro-style game, which is just not the way it's supposed to be.
- Turrets are too expensive to defend against DT's/VR's
- Tanks are too weak
- lack of Highground-advantage hurts Terran the most
- Maps are too small
- If you wan't to play solid, you have to build too many different Unit's/Structures. Just to be safe against DT/VR/timingpush from Protoss, you need lot's of turrets, Marines, Bunkers, all the while you wan't to get up an expansion and tech to higher-tier-units - that's just too much and that's why most Terrans nowadays use cheap tricks like fast-Banshee-cheese, totally stupid all-in's with all SCV's, proxy and other lame stuff...
- In addition to that, all the other races have such high mobility, backdoors, close Maps etc. that it's so hard to move out on the map to take a third expansion and defend it well...
Unit-Composition/Upgrade-Synergies:
Another Reason why it's hard to play defensive with Terran is, that Terran is the race that has the most Synergies between Units and that needs the most Upgrades and diverse Unit-composition. So while you try to defend and Macro up, you should also tech and Upgrade, because so many Units get so much better with upgrades (stim, shields, concussive) and together with other Units (Infantry+Stim+Medivacs for example, or Tanks that need heavy Marine/Marauder-Support or EMP against Immo's).
Hard-Counters:
The Last point that makes it hard for Terran to play a solid Macro-build and therefore just be a "weaker race" is that most Terran-Units have an excellent hard-counter on the Protoss-side and Terran has to be the one constantly mixing up Unit-compositions and knowing exactly what the opponent is doing, a few examples:
- Marauders get pwned by Immos, so you need lots of Marines+EMP
- Marines get pwned by Collossi, so you need Vikings/lots of Marauders/Tanks.
- HT's pwn Infantry, so you need EMP
- Tanks get pwned by Immo's, so you need Marines and/or EMP
It's just always up to the Terran to switch Unit-compositions, so your always on the back foot, but Terran should be able to defend easier than it's for the Protoss to attack, so the Protoss has to play creatively and/or Macro up himself and take expansion, rather than the Protoss being able to pressure Terran with different builds/rushes so easily without the need to play smart.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 10 2010 04:54 kickinhead wrote:
I don't think Protoss is easier to play than Terran because of the mechanics, but because of the way you play the different races and the BO's:
Terran always was the race which required very high APM, good Multitasking and Macro, that's stuff good Terran players can adapt to and that's why good mechanical players choose to play Terran, at least to a certain extent. But this has been rewarded by the possibilities of strong, macro-oriented and mechanically demanding builds, whereas Protoss had to be creative to win, be good at countering timing-pushes etc.
In SC2, it's a totally different story: Terran is still harder to play mechanically than Protoss, but Terran has a hard time defending against rushes, it's hard to get into "macromode" with them and Protoss is the one with the very strong timing-attacks.
Terran Defense:
Atm, T is IMHO the worst race at playing a defensive macro-style game, which is just not the way it's supposed to be.
- Turrets are too expensive to defend against DT's/VR's
- Tanks are too weak
- lack of Highground-advantage hurts Terran the most
- Maps are too small
- If you wan't to play solid, you have to build too many different Unit's/Structures. Just to be safe against DT/VR/timingpush from Protoss, you need lot's of turrets, Marines, Bunkers, all the while you wan't to get up an expansion and tech to higher-tier-units - that's just too much and that's why most Terrans nowadays use cheap tricks like fast-Banshee-cheese, totally stupid all-in's with all SCV's, proxy and other lame stuff...
- In addition to that, all the other races have such high mobility, backdoors, close Maps etc. that it's so hard to move out on the map to take a third expansion and defend it well...
Unit-Composition/Upgrade-Synergies:
Another Reason why it's hard to play defensive with Terran is, that Terran is the race that has the most Synergies between Units and that needs the most Upgrades and diverse Unit-composition. So while you try to defend and Macro up, you should also tech and Upgrade, because so many Units get so much better with upgrades (stim, shields, concussive) and together with other Units (Infantry+Stim+Medivacs for example, or Tanks that need heavy Marine/Marauder-Support or EMP against Immo's).
Hard-Counters:
The Last point that makes it hard for Terran to play a solid Macro-build and therefore just be a "weaker race" is that most Terran-Units have an excellent hard-counter on the Protoss-side and Terran has to be the one constantly mixing up Unit-compositions and knowing exactly what the opponent is doing, a few examples:
- Marauders get pwned by Immos, so you need lots of Marines+EMP
- Marines get pwned by Collossi, so you need Vikings/lots of Marauders/Tanks.
- HT's pwn Infantry, so you need EMP
- Tanks get pwned by Immo's, so you need Marines and/or EMP
It's just always up to the Terran to switch Unit-compositions, so your always on the back foot, but Terran should be able to defend easier than it's for the Protoss to attack, so the Protoss has to play creatively and/or Macro up himself and take expansion, rather than the Protoss being able to pressure Terran with different builds/rushes so easily without the need to play smart.
I agree I do not know why blizzard is so stubborn and does not want to change the highground advantage mechanic! ITS SO DAM IMPORTANT! as of right now high ground is really not much of an advantage at all with all these cliff walking and easy to obtain observers and Ovies and scans
|
This was a brief conversation i had with qxc and ironically we were also talking about this
Andre says:
I get this feeling that
since units behave more smartly
you are punished like 5 times more for having your tanks out of position
than you were in BW
units walk in blobs
not in streams
so combats are shorter
and tanks are less usefull
qxc says:
that's interesting
Andre says:
just my 2 cent
qxc says:
dunno if I totally agree but definitely a good thing to think about
Andre says:
hehe
TvZ is a weird matchup
I think T cant win unless he does sucessfull harass
or the Z sucks
qxc says:
eh
it's really weird
cuz z still has macro advantage
since hatch = productionb
but now they can compete on equal bases
which seems kinda messed up
Andre says:
i agree
Andre says:
I dont like saying the game is imbalanced because it is pretty balanced
but seems like whenever players are equally skilled terran is on a uphill battle
because all other races can tailor their armies to yours faster then you can tailor your army to theirs
so you are left with massing infantry with mech and/or air support
or mass air
or something like that
qxc says:
it's definitely true
that p/z have it easier
in terms of changing unit composition
overall we both agree T is significantly worse than P and Z
|
On May 10 2010 05:20 D10 wrote:
This was a brief conversation i had with qxc and ironically we were also talking about this
Andre says:
I get this feeling that
since units behave more smartly
you are punished like 5 times more for having your tanks out of position
than you were in BW
units walk in blobs
not in streams
so combats are shorter
and tanks are less usefull
qxc says:
that's interesting
Andre says:
just my 2 cent
qxc says:
dunno if I totally agree but definitely a good thing to think about
Andre says:
hehe
TvZ is a weird matchup
I think T cant win unless he does sucessfull harass
or the Z sucks
qxc says:
eh
it's really weird
cuz z still has macro advantage
since hatch = productionb
but now they can compete on equal bases
which seems kinda messed up
Andre says:
i agree
Andre says:
I dont like saying the game is imbalanced because it is pretty balanced
but seems like whenever players are equally skilled terran is on a uphill battle
because all other races can tailor their armies to yours faster then you can tailor your army to theirs
so you are left with massing infantry with mech and/or air support
or mass air
or something like that
qxc says:
it's definitely true
that p/z have it easier
in terms of changing unit composition
overall we both agree T is significantly worse than P and Z
Would be nice if QXC posts his own thoughts in this thread. He is one of the top US Terran players.
|
hehe well thats up to him ^^
hes kinda busy studying for finals so lets see
|
Would be nice if Blizzards balance team would explain some of their thoughts and about possible changes.
|
|
|
Even if they explain their reasonings it doesnt mean they have to make sense. Sometimes "you gotta be one to know one" and sometimes you can see much clearer as an outsider.
Maybe the Blizzard designers are too much stuck in the details and arent seeing the big picture of problems of the whole system, maybe they have additional information we dont have, but the community figured out some very innovative strategies which the Blizzard designers never came up with already and this kinda proves that they arent all-knowing.
On May 10 2010 05:18 Yuma wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 10 2010 04:54 kickinhead wrote:
I don't think Protoss is easier to play than Terran because of the mechanics, but because of the way you play the different races and the BO's:
Terran always was the race which required very high APM, good Multitasking and Macro, that's stuff good Terran players can adapt to and that's why good mechanical players choose to play Terran, at least to a certain extent. But this has been rewarded by the possibilities of strong, macro-oriented and mechanically demanding builds, whereas Protoss had to be creative to win, be good at countering timing-pushes etc.
In SC2, it's a totally different story: Terran is still harder to play mechanically than Protoss, but Terran has a hard time defending against rushes, it's hard to get into "macromode" with them and Protoss is the one with the very strong timing-attacks.
Terran Defense:
Atm, T is IMHO the worst race at playing a defensive macro-style game, which is just not the way it's supposed to be.
- Turrets are too expensive to defend against DT's/VR's
- Tanks are too weak
- lack of Highground-advantage hurts Terran the most
- Maps are too small
- If you wan't to play solid, you have to build too many different Unit's/Structures. Just to be safe against DT/VR/timingpush from Protoss, you need lot's of turrets, Marines, Bunkers, all the while you wan't to get up an expansion and tech to higher-tier-units - that's just too much and that's why most Terrans nowadays use cheap tricks like fast-Banshee-cheese, totally stupid all-in's with all SCV's, proxy and other lame stuff...
- In addition to that, all the other races have such high mobility, backdoors, close Maps etc. that it's so hard to move out on the map to take a third expansion and defend it well...
Unit-Composition/Upgrade-Synergies:
Another Reason why it's hard to play defensive with Terran is, that Terran is the race that has the most Synergies between Units and that needs the most Upgrades and diverse Unit-composition. So while you try to defend and Macro up, you should also tech and Upgrade, because so many Units get so much better with upgrades (stim, shields, concussive) and together with other Units (Infantry+Stim+Medivacs for example, or Tanks that need heavy Marine/Marauder-Support or EMP against Immo's).
Hard-Counters:
The Last point that makes it hard for Terran to play a solid Macro-build and therefore just be a "weaker race" is that most Terran-Units have an excellent hard-counter on the Protoss-side and Terran has to be the one constantly mixing up Unit-compositions and knowing exactly what the opponent is doing, a few examples:
- Marauders get pwned by Immos, so you need lots of Marines+EMP
- Marines get pwned by Collossi, so you need Vikings/lots of Marauders/Tanks.
- HT's pwn Infantry, so you need EMP
- Tanks get pwned by Immo's, so you need Marines and/or EMP
It's just always up to the Terran to switch Unit-compositions, so your always on the back foot, but Terran should be able to defend easier than it's for the Protoss to attack, so the Protoss has to play creatively and/or Macro up himself and take expansion, rather than the Protoss being able to pressure Terran with different builds/rushes so easily without the need to play smart. I agree I do not know why blizzard is so stubborn and does not want to change the highground advantage mechanic! ITS SO DAM IMPORTANT! as of right now high ground is really not much of an advantage at all with all these cliff walking and easy to obtain observers and Ovies and scans
I doubt the high ground advantage is more important than getting rid of the tight balls of infantry OR providing a more solid advantage for sieged tanks at any position. Many battles will be fought on flat terrain and the infantry mobility as it is now will always kill "a few" sieged tanks much too quickly. Spreading out among a front is part of any turtle tactic though.
|
I think our favourite son D. Browder recently stated that the most uneven matchup where TvP where one of the races won 6% more often (protoss?). That would imply that the stats cant differ more than that in TvZ.
|
As far as my own tournament success goes I'm going to place most of the blame/responsibility on the fact that I havn't played/done anything at such a high level before. TLI was the biggest event I've ever participated in and I'm still working on the mental aspect of playing series and dealing with lots of spectators.
If Terran is the weakest race (which I'm convinced of) then it has to do with ease of macro as well as the existence of hard counters.
Zerg does not get tied to a specific subset of their units due to the fact that everything is produced from a hatchery. If Z needs mutas all they need is a spire and they can produce a large amount. The same goes for each of their units.
On the other hand Terran generally confines themselves to one small set of units whether it be infantry air or mech. If I'm going a primarily infantry strategy and suddenly need a large number of air units in response to whatever my opponent is doing it takes much longer than if I were a zerg player.
What this means is that if I fall behind on my scouting I have a smaller timing window as a Terran where I can rally the correct response when compared to zerg who can wait for the next batch of eggs to pop and hatch the correct unit.
Protoss has a similar problem to Terran but due to the greater versatility of their gateway units as well as the fact that they can be summoned anywhere with pylon power this effect is negated at least somewhat. I say greater versatility due to the fact that their primary AA unit comes off the gateway as well as their best spellcaster their cloaked unit their tank and the sentry.
Let's say protoss has fallen behind on scouting and doesn't realize he really needs more of x unit to deal with my army. He can fall back to pylon power (good p's have forward pylons) summon in several of the given unit and then re-engage whereas a terran player has to have those units coming from their base.
One final thought what might also be a potential downfall to terran. Infantry want medivacs to greatly increase their effectiveness and utility but medivacs are so far up the tech tree that terrans are forced to make the hard decision between more infantry or medivacs. Compare this to a typical Z or P army which can feel 'complete' with either raw gateway units and slight robo support or in the case of Z just roach/hydra.
Hope that's clear
qxc
|
On May 10 2010 04:54 kickinhead wrote:
Terran Defense:
Atm, T is IMHO the worst race at playing a defensive macro-style game, which is just not the way it's supposed to be.
- Turrets are too expensive to defend against DT's/VR's
- Tanks are too weak
- lack of Highground-advantage hurts Terran the most
- Maps are too small
- If you wan't to play solid, you have to build too many different Unit's/Structures. Just to be safe against DT/VR/timingpush from Protoss, you need lot's of turrets, Marines, Bunkers, all the while you wan't to get up an expansion and tech to higher-tier-units - that's just too much and that's why most Terrans nowadays use cheap tricks like fast-Banshee-cheese, totally stupid all-in's with all SCV's, proxy and other lame stuff...
- In addition to that, all the other races have such high mobility, backdoors, close Maps etc. that it's so hard to move out on the map to take a third expansion and defend it well....
This is my biggest complaint with current Terran trends. I feel that Terran cannot play a defensive macro oriented build like it could in SC1, particularly against Zerg.
Terrans can't just mass up a midgame ball and push out against Zerg expecting to be even. Aggression is expected from the get go, which I dislike as I much prefer to play a drawn out macro game. However, speaking STRICTLY MACRO WISE, Zerg has the advantage in a pure macro race.
While T and P can both lay down a strong harassment to slow down Zerg econ, I do not like the issue that currently harassment is basically necessary, if not some early game aggression.
|
Dont like how terran has become gimmick harass race. Basicly every game evolve around reaper/hellion/banshee/viking/thor dropship harass. Playing streight up macro game and trying to secure bases isnt possible anymore.
|
On May 10 2010 07:50 Pekkz wrote:
Dont like how terran has become gimmick harass race. Basicly every game evolve around reaper/hellion/banshee/viking/thor dropship harass. Playing streight up macro game and trying to secure bases isnt possible anymore.
And then the other races complain that Terran harass is OP and needs a nerf because of how good it is, particularly the reaper harass opening that exploits early timing windows.
My opinion is that, it's okay that Blizzard nerfs the harassment issues as long as it compensates by giving Terran more macro flexibility and potential. I feel that's the biggest thing hurting Terran right now, far more than issues with units themselves.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
Why was this closed? Post a reason when closing please.
Reading the past page of this thread, it seems completely fine...
|
On May 10 2010 23:33 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Why was this closed? Post a reason when closing please.
Reading the past page of this thread, it seems completely fine...
Thanks for reopening this thread. With QXC's reply to this thread, it was just getting interesting. I would like to hear more comments from the other top US Terran players on this issue - CauthonLuk, KawaiiRice, LZGamer, and more.
|
On May 10 2010 06:43 qxc wrote:
As far as my own tournament success goes I'm going to place most of the blame/responsibility on the fact that I havn't played/done anything at such a high level before. TLI was the biggest event I've ever participated in and I'm still working on the mental aspect of playing series and dealing with lots of spectators.
If Terran is the weakest race (which I'm convinced of) then it has to do with ease of macro as well as the existence of hard counters.
Zerg does not get tied to a specific subset of their units due to the fact that everything is produced from a hatchery. If Z needs mutas all they need is a spire and they can produce a large amount. The same goes for each of their units.
On the other hand Terran generally confines themselves to one small set of units whether it be infantry air or mech. If I'm going a primarily infantry strategy and suddenly need a large number of air units in response to whatever my opponent is doing it takes much longer than if I were a zerg player.
What this means is that if I fall behind on my scouting I have a smaller timing window as a Terran where I can rally the correct response when compared to zerg who can wait for the next batch of eggs to pop and hatch the correct unit.
Protoss has a similar problem to Terran but due to the greater versatility of their gateway units as well as the fact that they can be summoned anywhere with pylon power this effect is negated at least somewhat. I say greater versatility due to the fact that their primary AA unit comes off the gateway as well as their best spellcaster their cloaked unit their tank and the sentry.
Let's say protoss has fallen behind on scouting and doesn't realize he really needs more of x unit to deal with my army. He can fall back to pylon power (good p's have forward pylons) summon in several of the given unit and then re-engage whereas a terran player has to have those units coming from their base.
One final thought what might also be a potential downfall to terran. Infantry want medivacs to greatly increase their effectiveness and utility but medivacs are so far up the tech tree that terrans are forced to make the hard decision between more infantry or medivacs. Compare this to a typical Z or P army which can feel 'complete' with either raw gateway units and slight robo support or in the case of Z just roach/hydra.
Hope that's clear
qxc
Thanks for giving your 2 cents on this issue QXC 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
