|
On June 05 2010 05:17 NATO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2010 23:47 Nakas wrote:On June 04 2010 22:02 Meff wrote:Please dont rush things, but well blizzard already did. Kinda weird to do it a few days before beta break. I dont think they will get anything out of from it in such a short time. They've said that they wanted the game to be balanced on all levels, in the past. Maybe there is a counter for professional-level gaming, but I think that the problem lies (or used to lie) in the casual gamer range. Let's say in the 60-70 APM range and without a deep knowledge of terran (of course, against a 60-70 APM opponent who doesn't have a deep knowledge of zerg, either). This is a good point. Even if the matchup is balanced at high levels as TLO says it is, I think things can be quite different at low and mid level play where most of the playerbase is. The slow, defensive, and reactionary nature of terran mech means it has a much lower APM requirement to play effectively. So at 50 APM, you can play a pretty strong mech game. In contrast, zerg requires more multibase play with lots of drops, nydus, and harass, which requires a pretty hefty APM. So for zerg, 50 APM is going to going to result in a much weaker game. I think this might be the reason for some of the disconnect between average players and high-level players such as TLO. I disagree. I think Terran requires much more apm to play effectively. Aside from marines, every terran unit is a hard damage counter to something else, meaning you have to choose who to attack appropriately. Secondly, almost every terran unit has some kind of ability, sometimes many. Spells are in all bio units, except reaper which is so fragile it has to be microed properly. Siege tanks must siege/unsiege. Vikings change mode, Thors have their assault cannons (admitedly really only used for base sieging or countering immortals). Hellions have to line up their splash effectively. banshees are fairly fragile, but do terrible damage, and cloak. Ravens have a million abilities. etc. Not to mention macroing is much more complicated, as a zerg just needs to strike two keys followed by spamming whatever they want to build. Terran has to have 9 hotkeys for each addon/building combo, or attempt to tab through when building. IMO, this makes Terran overpowered at the high level, and even at lower levels. (Because blizzard appears to have been balancing on mid-range player skill for the most part)
wat? terran is hard to play so its OP? what kinda of logic is that?
|
blizzard was too quick with this patch indeed, and i am glad that certain people in korea or not balance designers or this game would be horrible to play.
|
terran hard to play ? bio terran maybe, but nech terran definitely not. Turtle into his base make 2-3 thors power rangers and 10 tanks and then a-move to the zerg base isnt really hard
|
On June 05 2010 01:02 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2010 21:09 MorroW wrote:
mech wasnt that imba before, i think it was pretty fair but the majority of maps in the mappool will always lean towards terran just like desert oasis like maps will always lean towards the zerg in favor
i think the change was pretty fair but very unlogical
this patch will not make it impossible for terran to win like many ppl have said but it will make it slightly harder
im ok with this patch but i disagree not giving the siege tank 40+20 dmg vs armored instead of now giving it straight up -10 dmg
i still really hold my thumbs for a banshee(nerf) and marauder(nerf) and baneling(stronger but die upon death instead of explode) so bio will be possible again and also so baneling micro would be hard to master. also hoping for a raven remake on the raven missile so it actually is worth upgrading. atm the drone is far better than the missile imo
cheaper carrier tech, bc range buff would also be things id approve of to see alittle more unit variety
i really think blizzard are giving us too many patches atm, they rnt giving us proper time to experiment and figure out whats imba before they make these rational decisions, like the hellion nerf now was completely uncalled for
edit: oh sorry thought this was the patch discussion thread :p i guess some of it is relevant tho ) Excellent post :C Only thing I'm unsure about is the 40+20 for siege tanks, but I guess that would make zealots better TvP which is ok since they kinda suck right now (hellions own them, tanks own them....).
Zealots just need a lategame buff. They are pretty good against zerg early game, but against Terran they almost have no use. If charge were made cheaper, marauders might not be so OP (they just counter all toss ground - all toss needs is a good counter). Also, having 40+20 siege tanks would make them useful meat shields. I think both of those would make zealots vs terran more viable, and marauders less OP.
On the other hand, if carriers or mothership weren't so worthless, this could be another counter that would force a terran not to focus so much on marauder. (Just having void ray be the only toss air, made really annoying ladder games where for a time all toss would do is VR rush.)
|
On June 05 2010 05:00 TeWy wrote:
There's nothing to suggest that mech is imba once the Zerg player is thinking further than a moving a bunch of roaches hydra.
Well... there's a lot of room between attack-moving a roach/hydra ball and playing in the SC2 world cup final and, judging from what people are saying, mech is a problem even in the presence of some tactical pianification and ingenuity.
|
Some people tend to agree with TLO since he plays both Zerg and Terran and therefore has little reason to be biased in favor of a specific race. But that some people share the same opinion as TLO doesn't mean that's a consequence of it being TLO's opinion, people just tend to have differing thoughts. I could say you're just siding with mech imba because Idra and Artosist think it is, but I won't since such comments lead nowhere.
It's just hard to believe Mech owns everything when it doesn't show in the ladders and tournaments. And with the huge race diversity it's also hard to imagine one strategy to be completely unstoppable, especially since there hasn't even been sufficient time to work out all possible counters, BO's and strategies. So there's a couple of reasons why I question Mech being totally OP, pick one.
Also I don't remember giving Idra or Artosis any lip, they've gotten the respect they deserve for being great gamers. I'm just trying to be constructive and flexible when it comes to SC2, because the game is far from being figured out ... hell, it isn't even released yet. 
|
i stand against the idea of making tanks deal 40+20 armored...
terran have marauder to kill armored units... still need to test some more but in theory 50 damage is fine imo.
|
Hrm...althought 40+20 for tanks would be bad for tvz, because tanks are supposed to counter hydra. Without tanks, there is almost no way for terran to deal with hydras. There really needs to be medium armor, so hydras can take 50, with zealots taking only 40. Ah well.
|
On June 05 2010 05:33 Saechiis wrote:Some people tend to agree with TLO since he plays both Zerg and Terran and therefore has little reason to be biased in favor of a specific race. But that some people share the same opinion as TLO doesn't mean that's a consequence of it being TLO's opinion, people just tend to have differing thoughts. I could say you're just siding with mech imba because Idra and Artosist think it is, but I won't since such comments lead nowhere. It's just hard to believe Mech owns everything when it doesn't show in the ladders and tournaments. And with the huge race diversity it's also hard to imagine one strategy to be completely unstoppable, especially since there hasn't even been sufficient time to work out all possible counters, BO's and strategies. So there's a couple of reasons why I question Mech being totally OP, pick one. Also I don't remember giving Idra or Artosis any lip, they've gotten the respect they deserve for being great gamers. I'm just trying to be constructive and flexible when it comes to SC2, because the game is far from being figured out ... it isn't even released yet.
The main people that thought mech was imba were the stubborn people that were having trouble with it. So yes, that'd be a few people that were very vocal about it being too strong yet rather than finding ways around it gameplay wise, they went cnc style forum raging to get blizz to nerf it.
The entire rootz clan apparently claimed they all thought it was imba and should be nerfed. I don't think they realized they are a small sample size of the entire world that is playing sc2 beta and the two games posted in the OP of this thread and other games were not enough games played to claim "mech imba." oh well, blizzard "listened" to the whining, ala EA style cnc patches, and nerfed tanks some.
The changes themselves are not "OMG HORRIBLE" but it's the fact that blizzard didn't wait long enough to see how things panned out that is "OMG HORRIBLE."
and qft, the game is far from being figured out, yet a few hotheads in the community are arrogant enough to think they have it entirely figured out. There's always more options to try.
|
I said this from the beginning and I *still* say it's the best fix. Give Corrupters "Spawn Broodling". Doesn't break anything just gives a small initiation option for ground-based Zerg mid-game armies while making for a sensible transition into late-game BLords.
It also makes sense to me from a "lore" perspective since Corrupters are there to "corrupt" and they evolve into BLords anyway.
|
Are tanks theonly ones that don't overkill? Or do units like Stalkers refuse to overkill as well? I think there's no reason tanks shouldn't overkill if other units don't either.
In fact, I feel like "overkill" is one of the fundamental features all ranged units have always had in an RTS, for the sole reason of keeping melee units viable when ranged is massed.
Everyone complains about how much ranged focus exists in SC2... why not have every unit overkill? We'd see more zealots/lings at least... probably have to redo Terran a little bit but it's not like we aren't still in teh beta and shouldn't be experimenting wiht changes anyways.
|
On June 05 2010 05:46 FabledIntegral wrote:
Are tanks theonly ones that don't overkill? Or do units like Stalkers refuse to overkill as well? I think there's no reason tanks shouldn't overkill if other units don't either.
In fact, I feel like "overkill" is one of the fundamental features all ranged units have always had in an RTS, for the sole reason of keeping melee units viable when ranged is massed.
Everyone complains about how much ranged focus exists in SC2... why not have every unit overkill? We'd see more zealots/lings at least... probably have to redo Terran a little bit but it's not like we aren't still in teh beta and shouldn't be experimenting wiht changes anyways.
Every unit that damages instantly doesn't overkill. Any unit with a projectile attack will overkill as in BW. I think stalkers are in the 2nd category.
|
On June 05 2010 05:46 FabledIntegral wrote:
Are tanks theonly ones that don't overkill? Or do units like Stalkers refuse to overkill as well? I think there's no reason tanks shouldn't overkill if other units don't either.
In fact, I feel like "overkill" is one of the fundamental features all ranged units have always had in an RTS, for the sole reason of keeping melee units viable when ranged is massed.
Everyone complains about how much ranged focus exists in SC2... why not have every unit overkill? We'd see more zealots/lings at least... probably have to redo Terran a little bit but it's not like we aren't still in teh beta and shouldn't be experimenting wiht changes anyways.
units that has projectiles can overkill such as marauders and stalkers but units that hit instantly like tank which would be the best example or like colossus simply just dont overkill because theres no time between the attack and the hit. all units in sc2 are just as smart when it comes to overkilling but the some units still do it because of the projectiles being slow in the air
|
On June 05 2010 05:07 jamesr12 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 05:02 nyshak wrote:On June 05 2010 04:56 zergporn wrote:
i respect TLO for creativity and random, but now he falls down in my eyes while he keep saying mech is fine whatever without any proof.
these are just words, words words words from a guy who in addition plays terran in tourneys lately. Well, he's offered to take on any good Terran and beat his mech while playing as Zerg himself. That's why I don't understand why he doesn't just describe his BO/strategy here. If he's going to show it ingame we'll get to see it anyway. the problem with mech is late game BO is early game you wont beat mech with some magic BO thats why
Read what I wrote. I said BO slash *strategy*.
|
On June 05 2010 05:46 FabledIntegral wrote:
Are tanks theonly ones that don't overkill? Or do units like Stalkers refuse to overkill as well? I think there's no reason tanks shouldn't overkill if other units don't either.
In fact, I feel like "overkill" is one of the fundamental features all ranged units have always had in an RTS, for the sole reason of keeping melee units viable when ranged is massed.
Everyone complains about how much ranged focus exists in SC2... why not have every unit overkill? We'd see more zealots/lings at least... probably have to redo Terran a little bit but it's not like we aren't still in teh beta and shouldn't be experimenting wiht changes anyways.
Any unit that has an instant attack doesn't over kill. Things like tanks, marines, vikings in ground mode where there isn't a missile animation. Units that have missile animations like stalkers and marauders can still overkill. Tanks just happen to be the most noteable of the non overkill units because of their high damage and low fire rate.
Edit: got beaten to it by a couple people 
|
So after the big nerf, tanks are still imba? I do not agree
|
On June 05 2010 05:56 lew wrote:
So after the big nerf, tanks are still imba? I do not agree
tanks will always own the living shit out of zerglings banelings and hydra before they reach the terran army as long as they deal normal dmg and thats the purpose of them. now maybe u dont wanna pump as many tanks as before since they wont own the shit out of roaches like they did before or upgrade mech like u did before but the idea is still the same. the only difference now is that terrans r gonna upgrade their bio and go with mech + bio army where the tanks purpose is to destroy all non-roach thor kill all muta easily with support by marines and the rest can be marauders in ur army that will own roach. sounds easy in theory but in practical it can be quite hard to get this death ball,
however my point is just that tanks r insanily good at killing 1 type of units (small) while its not so strong against others and this is enough to make it "imba"
thats why i want them to make the tank not such a hardcounter unit vs small units that clump up by giving it a small dmg against them while it has a decent dmg vs larger units. generally ud say not normal attack dmg is hardcounter-style but in this case its the opposite, just because of how the firerate and splashdmg is made
|
I feel like removing the smart AI from tanks would fix soooooo much
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 05 2010 05:52 huameng wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 05:46 FabledIntegral wrote:
Are tanks theonly ones that don't overkill? Or do units like Stalkers refuse to overkill as well? I think there's no reason tanks shouldn't overkill if other units don't either.
In fact, I feel like "overkill" is one of the fundamental features all ranged units have always had in an RTS, for the sole reason of keeping melee units viable when ranged is massed.
Everyone complains about how much ranged focus exists in SC2... why not have every unit overkill? We'd see more zealots/lings at least... probably have to redo Terran a little bit but it's not like we aren't still in teh beta and shouldn't be experimenting wiht changes anyways. Every unit that damages instantly doesn't overkill. Any unit with a projectile attack will overkill as in BW. I think stalkers are in the 2nd category.
I believe this is correct. IIRC, Tanks also fell in that category in SC1 (there was a 1-frame delay between the explosion animation and a unit actually dying, or something like that), but in SC2, they fire instantly.
|
On June 05 2010 06:27 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 05:52 huameng wrote:On June 05 2010 05:46 FabledIntegral wrote:
Are tanks theonly ones that don't overkill? Or do units like Stalkers refuse to overkill as well? I think there's no reason tanks shouldn't overkill if other units don't either.
In fact, I feel like "overkill" is one of the fundamental features all ranged units have always had in an RTS, for the sole reason of keeping melee units viable when ranged is massed.
Everyone complains about how much ranged focus exists in SC2... why not have every unit overkill? We'd see more zealots/lings at least... probably have to redo Terran a little bit but it's not like we aren't still in teh beta and shouldn't be experimenting wiht changes anyways. Every unit that damages instantly doesn't overkill. Any unit with a projectile attack will overkill as in BW. I think stalkers are in the 2nd category. I believe this is correct. IIRC, Tanks also fell in that category in SC1 (there was a 1-frame delay between the explosion animation and a unit actually dying, or something like that), but in SC2, they fire instantly.
Bring this back . It was cool seeing tanks firing on a reaver that made it into the shuttle JUST in time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
