|
Rael, I feel bad for you as no one ACTUALLY tries to not let their emotional rage step aside on the internet these days, and look at things in a productive way since not many are playing at the level of play where the balance issue is really in question. I know I'm not, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
You can theorycraft all you want people, it doesn't make a difference. As MoMaN (who I <3) said, if terran make mistakes you have a higher chance of winning, but their mistakes are a hell of a lot easier to rectify than zerg players.
Raelcun's proposition is not unreasonable, as it still requires zerg to bring their a game. I don't understand why people are getting so emotional about something that really isn't effecting them.
If someone has an opinion, that holds warrant and is backed up by people involved on all fronts, you should listen and try to be productive so the community can propose a well balanced change or strategy that can actually be viable.
|
On June 03 2010 11:30 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 11:25 Jinsin5 wrote:
200/200 terran should be able to beat 200/200 zerg
200/200 terran should not be able to kill 10+ waves of 200/200, with minimal losses.
I heartily agree with this statement. I feel that at this point, Zerg does not posses the tools to reliably break late game mech armies. Its not that terran needs a huge nerf, its just they need an adjustment so that this particularly strategy is toned down slightly.
How about a maxed zerg army vs a 130 terran army?
|
On June 03 2010 11:27 Darpa wrote:
This is kinda funny. Tanks are no better than they were in broodwar.
Not to mention, seeing as how i watched every one of those games, BOTH sheth and Moman ran 200/200 armies of ground units into a TANK LINE 3 TIMES. 3 TIMES. YES ILL SAY IT AGAIN FOR EFFECT 3 TIMES. (sheth was more like 5 times)
Had either one of the literally switched to make 15 mutas (particularily momans game) they would have crushed those terran builds. LZ never had more than 3 thors on the field and 2-4 vikings, they were almost alwasy out protecting his tanks. With mutas MoMan could have raped LZ's bases/expansions, if he moved his thors back, he could have raped his tanks. Same thing for Sheth.
he buillt 4 Ultra armiers, 4! and they all died against tanks REPEATEDLY. He could have teched to broodlords 3 times over, but instead stayed with Ultras. Zerg has fantastic air units, why Zerg dont seem to want to build them, and want to continually run GROUND UNITS into sieged tanks and crying imbalance is beyond me.
You're right, the answer is to make mutas and attack mineral lines. Ignore the unkillable T army a-moving into your base to end the game. You showed those scv what's what.
|
On June 03 2010 11:27 Darpa wrote:
This is kinda funny. Tanks are no better than they were in broodwar.
This is not even arguable. They are better in sc2. If this is a troll then you aren't being funny
|
I believe you guys didnt realize that u need vision to use the nydus worm and yet with vikings and sensor towers .. tell me how exactly do you wanna proceed with your 10 worms in his main ?
It's so easy to say something like "Oh he should have done this or that.. he didn't play well enough.." but seriously, by letting 10-15 tanks in his main and the rest of his army at his expo and tossing some guided bomb with ravens when ultras come isn't what i call actually Trying !
You can clearly see in the video that Qxc's apm was down for a while and i remember Realcun showing it on the stream. It's not right that Zerg players have to try harder to win compared to Terrans at the same level of play, clearly not.
Don't say that zerg players are not used to end-game mech or something like that cause it doesn't have anything to do with this espescially at top level because we are talking about players that know how to play their race.
Oh and tell me, why are you talking about SLOW Terran MOBILITY when it really doesn't matter at that point if you can just sit a bunch of tank in your base and attack with the other part of your army ?
That's right, you are wrong by saying it's fine.
|
On June 03 2010 11:22 MoMaN- wrote:
can you explain me what i must do before this 18 minuts with my units vs terran tower all his base and got so many tank and thor and viking on siege? Öô waiting He didn't have towers all over his base until 17 minutes in.
I mean, roaches do increasingly worse--per roach--as more time goes on and he gets more tanks. So, I think you want to attack as soon as possible and keep attacking. No idea past there. But I feel like the zerg waiting until he hits 200/200--and then banking some money--before ever attacking is the best case scenario for the mech player.
It's kind of the exact opposite of how it would be for a bioball terran vs zerg. Best case scenario for the zerg is that the terran waits until he's maxed before ever attacking. Winning as the terran in that scenario is pretty much impossible.
|
I'm a terran player, just low diamond, so meh.
But I think tanks are pretty ridiculous...They are affecting TvT too, the reason no other strat but Tank/Vike works in TvT is because no ground unit can stand up to tanks.
I disagree about the AI thing. If you have to make "AI" dumber in an RTS, than the unit is probably just overpowered. They just need to lower the damage on the siege tanks---Maybe even lower the damage dramatically and then take away the friendly fire/min range aspect of it to make it usable in more situations but less powerful in those situations.
If I were to muse as a developer, I would lower their damage to 30 but take away friendly fire, min range and maybe knock off some gas cost. They would essential become amazing "mass" killers, like Collos or Storm but they would become poorer against higher tier, higher HP units.
Then again, like I said, I'm an RTS noobie, so meh but I think its a huge problem when a unit is so good at AE, that even "tank" units, like roaches/marauders/thors get "melted" as if they were t1.
|
I've made this suggestion on blizzard's sc2 form a while back that could potentially solve the terran mech dilemma fro zerg without imbalancing the game.
(Note: I got pretty much no feed back (1 reply) on the bliz forum.)
It is a modification to the corruptor's corruption skill to dissable targeted unit from attacking.
Preface:
The current corruption skill:
Increase targeted unit's damage in take by 20% for 30s; at cost of 100 energy from range 6 with instant cast.
While used when corruptors are already on the field for some other reason this skill in unremarkable as it only provides a marginal advantage even in the situations it was designed for (targeting expensive high hp enemy units).
Further more it doesn't add to game dynamic in any particular fashion and the effect of the skill is so unimpressive in that even ideal use of it will not have game changing effects.
Currently zerg does not have a cost effective method of directly engaging terran mech forces when once in position (I'm asserting this as there have been many discussions regarding this topic already). Now, this is NOT a balance issue as there are work around strategies that allow zerg players to win by avoid such confrontations (which have been discussed already and have been found to be sufficient). However, it IS an issue with game dynamics as its does put sever limitations on viable strategies.
Suggestion:
Change corruptor corruption skill to:
Disable targeted unit's ability to attack for 3 game second; at cost of 150 energy from range 6 with instant cast.
(it has been noted that the disable time may need to be revised up to 5 game seconds but this would require actual game testing)
Reason:
This skill CAN have game changing effects if used correctly, while still allowing the opponent the option to mitigate its effects by disengaging (corrupted units will still be able to move, just not attack).
By disabling key units in conjunction with zerg units' high mobility this will give the zerg race an effective strategy to engage forces that they currently have great difficult against.
Since corruptors are fairly expensive it will not be the case that zerg would get huge advantage out of this skill as corruptors can't be massed without sacrificing army strength.
Finally while effective against its targeted strategy (opponent massing large number of expensive immobile units) all races have units that can be used in response to a zerg building a large number of corruptors for this skill making it so that it will not imbalance the game.
|
On June 03 2010 11:34 kNyTTyM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 11:27 Darpa wrote:
This is kinda funny. Tanks are no better than they were in broodwar.
This is not even arguable. They are better in sc2. If this is a troll then you aren't being funny
Explain to me a situation in broodwar were a 200/200 army of hydras/ultras would beat a 200/200 fully upgraded tank line? Because i cant think of one.
Also, mutas can attack and kill buildings quickly if they are A. more than 10 and B. upgraded, which they should be late game.
|
On June 03 2010 11:35 Lithose wrote:
I disagree about the AI thing. If you have to make "AI" dumber in an RTS, than the unit is probably just overpowered. They just need to lower the damage on the siege tanks---Maybe even lower the damage dramatically and then take away the friendly fire/min range aspect of it to make it usable in more situations but less powerful in those situations.
They wouldn't be siege tanks without min range and friendly fire.
|
On June 03 2010 11:37 Darpa wrote:
Explain to me a situation in broodwar were a 200/200 army of hydras/ultras would beat a 200/200 fully upgraded tank line? Because i cant think of one.
.
20 hydra against 7 tanks would probably mean 3 tanks dead, without me having any math to back that.
|
mech is just fine the way it is, enough whining
|
They wouldn't be siege tanks without min range and friendly fire.
It wouldn't be StarCraft with auto-mining.
Games change as software improves. Its a siege tank as long as it has a transformation into a long range "siege" vehicle.
|
Nerf Thors.
The issue is that Thors are pretty much the only Hardcounter in the game, maybe along with Infestors against Mothership, which is irrelevent. You're a scenario where 2 Thors invalidate any amount of Mutalisks, and as soon as Terran gets Thors up, combined with freakin 24 damage missle turrets, Mutalisks are no long valid unit choices.
Mechs main vulnerability is it's mobility. Currently, the means for zerg to exploit this are too limited. Specifically, because of the Viking and the Thor. A single thor at a base renders muta harass impossible.
You literally need upwards to fifteen mutalisks to kill a single thor supported by SCV's. 1500/1500 investment, and many of them will die. With 2 missle turrets, it becomes impossible.
Please please do not nerf tanks blizzard. Why are you guys advocating that? What about "Omg positional play is dead"? Starcraft is defined by superpowerful units with the ability to change any match in huge ways.
The issue isn't that some units are superpowerful, but the direction in which this node of power points the game towards. Siege Tanks discourage Attack-A attacks, to the point of making an Attack A on a well fortified terran position with any equal army composition literally suicide. This is a good thing. Siege Tanks encourage taking map control to punish turtling. Siege tanks encourage non-all in harrassment. Siege Tanks encourage active play during macro. While siege tank standoffs are disdained, before that period, a fortification of siege tanks encourages constant expansion and harrassment instead of passive macro and army building. They encourage teching.
None of these are bad at all.
In fact, due to the fact that the roach sucks balls, Siege tanks literally encourage only one negative effect, the possibility of a deadlocked post-macro late game standoff. Even the units the encourage are units that should be encouraged, without invalidating any unit other then banelings, a unit by balance, designed to be invalidated, due to it's system of binary returns. (Terrible Terrible damage or none at all). They encourage Roaches and Ultralisks, both underused, while I've yet to see a ZvT play out without use of Lings and hydras despite tanks.
They don't even encourage overuse and bland armies, they have severe weaknesses that need to be addressed with a varied army.
The issue here is the Thor. The Thor is also a extremely powerful unit, a node that will shift the dynamic of gameplay. But it shifts the game in only negative ways as far as it's air attack goes. It renders the Mutalisk invalid, a basic zerg unit that severely hurts the diversity of the matchup when it is taken out, especially when zerg already so desperately need more units.
The Mutalisk would be among the most annoying units for mech play. The antithetical of the tank, it power is inordinately low, but makes up for it with sheer mobility. Essentially, the unit is designed to counter standard mech play (not hardcounter, just counter). But the Thor provides such a passive, long ranged attack that it invalidates this mobility. In essence, it shifts the game away from all the things a siege tank encourages. This simultaneously creates an imbalance for zerg, designed to exploit mechs immobility, while making the game more boring and less diverse.
It's ability is also bullshit. Not only did it invalidate mutalisks, but it invalidates ultralisks to the point where it necessitated the creation of a new ability just to counter another ability. If that isn't bad design idk what is.
|
On June 03 2010 11:39 Ghad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 11:37 Darpa wrote:
Explain to me a situation in broodwar were a 200/200 army of hydras/ultras would beat a 200/200 fully upgraded tank line? Because i cant think of one.
. 20 hydra against 7 tanks would probably mean 3 tanks dead, without me having any math to back that.
Umm, ok? that was not what i was talking about. Not to mention LZ lost tons of tanks. He literally had only 8-10 tanks (out of maybe 20) after he pushed those 6oclock expansions of MoMan.
If those Broodwar tanks were fully upgraded as I said above, you might lose 1 or 2 tanks as those hydras moved against a sieged line.
|
On June 03 2010 11:37 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 11:34 kNyTTyM wrote:On June 03 2010 11:27 Darpa wrote:
This is kinda funny. Tanks are no better than they were in broodwar.
This is not even arguable. They are better in sc2. If this is a troll then you aren't being funny Explain to me a situation in broodwar were a 200/200 army of hydras/ultras would beat a 200/200 fully upgraded tank line? Because i cant think of one. Also, mutas can attack and kill buildings quickly if they are A. more than 10 and B. upgraded, which they should be late game.
what? When did I ever say a 200/200 hydra ultra army would beat a maxed tank line?
|
Corinthos
Canada1842 Posts
I don't see why one specific unit AI needs to be "dumbed." Else wise, why not "dumb" down the other units AI? Remove auto surround, remove auto-mine, split, etc? These are there to keep the game at a certain level and equality.
I think we should think more about working around the situation with what is present. Yes, the win % is probably higher at the moment for TvZ mech, but a like many new strats/plays it presents a new challenge. When we take mech TvZ in bw for example, it was quite strong in its early stages as well. Then as more games, and people like Day[9] came up with ways to play against it.
When we play or look at games, and see two armies collide and one wins by a long shot, it doesn't mean it is over powered. We have to look carefully at the unit composition and control by both players. BW example: if the mech army consisted of mostly goliaths then obviously heavily mutalisk based army would lose to it. When the army is made up of majorly tanks, then obviously a heavy or pure ground army would have big trouble vs it (excluding dark swarms, fungal etc). This was a key aspect of fighting mech in BW, re-adjusting your army composition so it will maximize the damage done.
Next, we have to look at strategies. Have all the strategies been tested? In the OP a replay of mom vs lz is posted, and a "variance" of tactics are used. I think we have to question why is the player so split in between his strategic play? His attacks and tactics obviously cannot be maximized if he tries to do a bit of everything. We are also excluding the factor that his opponent ultimately outplayed him. If you can post examples of each individual tactic being optimized to its fullest and still lose to the other strat, then yes there is a problem.
Once again, people need to analyze mech's weaknesses and compare it to its strength. Like its low mobility and turtle ability. Considering mech is heavily gas priced, terran army composition is delicately balanced between how many of each unit it needs. Denying terran from further expoing outside their natural limits their economy to their one big force. Given this time it allows for zerg to expand and build their economy > than the terrans. Also, assuming zerg does a good job stopping terran from expanding. If terran is capable to defend all sort of harassment from zerg, and then terran moves out it presents opportunity for the zerg to do several things. Zerg can backdoor into their natural or main and take out key buildings. Or they can flank the moving army with tanks unseiged. Sure, zerg army may lose the fight, but I think we undermine how fast the zerg can replenish its army. As long as you take out and exchange a decent amount of terrans army, with your greater economy and macro you should be able to repeat this and take the rest of it out. This also allows the zerg the chance to hard counter the leftover terran units.
The game is still at its very early stages, and we should allow for more room for it to grow before suggesting a plethora of changes. I think we have to ask ourselves if we can really ask for changes from the current game pool and more so to face a specific strategy. Is it really unbeatable? Unbeatable to me is when anyone can apply this strategy and win consistently with it. Can a player from a different level league use this strategy and consistently win versus someone in a higher league? Players skill level are all over the spectrum.
I don't have much time to go over more points, but I feel a lot of balance issues concerning certain game play or strategies are being misrepresented. Let's enjoy the rest of beta and wait for the release when there will be a bigger audience of players. Competitiveness is what keeps the game going, and I think someone will figure something soon enough. If there is something weird or unnatural about a unit, blizzard will make the changes. Hence, they have all the statistics anyhow.
|
On June 03 2010 11:37 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 11:34 kNyTTyM wrote:On June 03 2010 11:27 Darpa wrote:
This is kinda funny. Tanks are no better than they were in broodwar.
This is not even arguable. They are better in sc2. If this is a troll then you aren't being funny Explain to me a situation in broodwar were a 200/200 army of hydras/ultras would beat a 200/200 fully upgraded tank line? Because i cant think of one. Also, mutas can attack and kill buildings quickly if they are A. more than 10 and B. upgraded, which they should be late game.
how difficult is it to understand than in BW when the terran players goes mass tank the zerg player just has to mass mutalisk / zerglings which isnt viable anymore in SC2 (I let you find the reason by yourself this has allready been discussed a thousands of times) ?
|
On June 03 2010 11:33 comis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 11:27 Darpa wrote:
This is kinda funny. Tanks are no better than they were in broodwar.
Not to mention, seeing as how i watched every one of those games, BOTH sheth and Moman ran 200/200 armies of ground units into a TANK LINE 3 TIMES. 3 TIMES. YES ILL SAY IT AGAIN FOR EFFECT 3 TIMES. (sheth was more like 5 times)
Had either one of the literally switched to make 15 mutas (particularily momans game) they would have crushed those terran builds. LZ never had more than 3 thors on the field and 2-4 vikings, they were almost alwasy out protecting his tanks. With mutas MoMan could have raped LZ's bases/expansions, if he moved his thors back, he could have raped his tanks. Same thing for Sheth.
he buillt 4 Ultra armiers, 4! and they all died against tanks REPEATEDLY. He could have teched to broodlords 3 times over, but instead stayed with Ultras. Zerg has fantastic air units, why Zerg dont seem to want to build them, and want to continually run GROUND UNITS into sieged tanks and crying imbalance is beyond me. You're right, the answer is to make mutas and attack mineral lines. Ignore the unkillable T army a-moving into your base to end the game. You showed those scv what's what.
LOL!!!!!!!
also......... are people actually suggesting that sheth should have made broodlord / corruptor vs qxc? i mean, he had 20 vikings + 15 ravens ready and waiting. I agree that broodlord / corruptor is really good but, say the zerg used every possible supply on corruptor broodlord. Say 60 supply is put towards drones/queens, and the zerg has absolutely 0 ground forces ( which is crazy and would never happen but anyways ) then he could make 70 corruptors, which MIGHT beat 20 vikings + 15 ravens, except that 10 PDD's and mass seeker missile, + the insane vikings range would completely decimate them, ok so it could be at best a trade of armies, even though yours cost 2x more than the t's army. But you would still need broodlords in there, to take out turrets and thors / marines / tanks. So say you add 10 broodlords, that is 40 supply gone that you cant use in the air fight =[ And you would get raped a LOT harder.
Honestly as a T player, I almost never have any problems dealing with broodlords, you can mass vikings so easily, in the late game i have a starport with reactor + 2 more with techlabs, pretty much as a standard when im on 2-3 base, and broodlords just take SOOOOOO LONG to get, and they are SOOOOOOOO slow moving, that i can easily have enough vikings to take them out before they do any damage.
Oh yeah, and nydus worms, that is the dumbest idea ever, go away avilo please
|
On June 03 2010 11:37 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 11:34 kNyTTyM wrote:On June 03 2010 11:27 Darpa wrote:
This is kinda funny. Tanks are no better than they were in broodwar.
This is not even arguable. They are better in sc2. If this is a troll then you aren't being funny Explain to me a situation in broodwar were a 200/200 army of hydras/ultras would beat a 200/200 fully upgraded tank line? Because i cant think of one.
That is not what he is even talking about! First of all, tanks are better in SC2 this is FACT, they do not overkill, if you still disagree, watch the video in the OP, if you still disagree, you should really back off your point, because i can assure you, you are wrong.
Regarding the second point, most people in this thread will agree. However, a 200/200 zerg army in broodwar, accompanied by dark swarm would deal a TON more damage than a ultra/hydra/infestor army in SC2. If you look at my previous post you will see how many units Sheth had to go through just to even get a few kills off, he used a pretty standard army too! If sheth even went mutas/broodlords/corruptors, the outcome would've been the same. Thors will decimate the mutas, not to mention backup from the HSM, and Vikings tearing apart broodlords with their +armored damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
