|
On August 03 2010 08:55 enCore- wrote:
wow, that viking video sure as hell looks fake, vikings are not that fast nor do they kill a void ray with 3-4 shots.... looks like a poor attempt to prove your point.
On August 03 2010 08:53 javy925 wrote:
The only valid suggestions made thus far in the thread have been:
1). cooldown on lowering/raising depots
2). cooldown on mules
3). making the minerals gained from salvaging bunkers 50-75%
The rest of the balance ideas have been incredibly hilarious and ludicrous, coming from whiny zerg players looking for any excuse for why they lose. If you want to nerf terran you need to first play terran so that you can properly propose ideas from the terran point-of-view. This is important because if you simply have the HURF DURF TERRAN SO OP mentality, then you neglect the other matchups terran have to deal with; very few of the zerg players in this thread have brought up the implications of their nerf ideas in TvP. It's a good thing Blizzard doesn't take threads like this seriously.
I was going to stay out of this, but now I have to say something.
Retarded posters like this are why these topics never accomplish anything.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 03 2010 08:55 hyouro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 08:53 javy925 wrote:
The only valid suggestions made thus far in the thread have been:
1). cooldown on lowering/raising depots
2). cooldown on mules
3). making the minerals gained from salvaging bunkers 50-75%
The rest of the balance ideas have been incredibly hilarious and ludicrous, coming from whiny zerg players looking for any excuse for why they lose. If you want to nerf terran you need to first play terran so that you can properly propose ideas from the terran point-of-view. This is important because if you simply have the HURF DURF TERRAN SO OP mentality, then you neglect the other matchups terran have to deal with; very few of the zerg players in this thread have brought up the implications of their nerf ideas in TvP. It's a good thing Blizzard doesn't take threads like this seriously. You do know that we can say the same to you...You are Terran, play Zerg and see what we struggle with.
No you can't because I'm not the one making the claim that there is something wrong with TvZ--the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim(s).
|
On August 03 2010 08:57 pieisamazing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 08:55 enCore- wrote:
wow, that viking video sure as hell looks fake, vikings are not that fast nor do they kill a void ray with 3-4 shots.... looks like a poor attempt to prove your point. Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 08:53 javy925 wrote:
The only valid suggestions made thus far in the thread have been:
1). cooldown on lowering/raising depots
2). cooldown on mules
3). making the minerals gained from salvaging bunkers 50-75%
The rest of the balance ideas have been incredibly hilarious and ludicrous, coming from whiny zerg players looking for any excuse for why they lose. If you want to nerf terran you need to first play terran so that you can properly propose ideas from the terran point-of-view. This is important because if you simply have the HURF DURF TERRAN SO OP mentality, then you neglect the other matchups terran have to deal with; very few of the zerg players in this thread have brought up the implications of their nerf ideas in TvP. It's a good thing Blizzard doesn't take threads like this seriously. I was going to stay out of this, but now I have to say something. Retarded posters like this are why these topics never accomplish anything.
Then you should have stayed out of it because retarded posts like this accomplish nothing.
|
i just got a very rare win verses terran and i got accused of hacking.
even terrans think its impossible for zergs to win.
|
On August 03 2010 08:38 TheYango wrote:
Haven't Artosis and Idra said on multiple occasions that making tanks capable of overkill again would effectively handle most, if not all the imbalance issues with Terran?
According to Blizzard, from the July 15th Developer Chat:
"To help with perfomance, units do not fire all at once. There is a tiny offset between different units firing their weapons. From the users perspective it is almost simultaenous, but the shots are actually 1/8-1/16th of a second apart. Since units cannot target units that are already dead and since Siege Tanks hit their targets instantly, this creates the situation you are describing, where Siege Tanks waste fewer shots."
While I do agree that allowing for tank overkill would probably fix the matchup, it just doesn't seem like it'll be a possibility any time soon.
|
On August 03 2010 08:55 Qikz wrote:
I don't understand the reasoning behind Lowering/Raising depots being overpowered, can someone please explain this to me? It's no different than just lifting off the barracks like in Broodwar.
Also, the reason why Spinecrawlers/Spore crawlers have a cooldown is because they can attack and it would seriously be op if they could just unburrow move, then insta burrow.
So essentially what a siege tank does, but without the range, splash, and necessity to be on creep? :D. (Obviously not being too serious, but I don't think it would be extremely OP either).
|
On August 03 2010 08:55 Icx wrote:
How does the terran need it to keep up in resources?
For example in PvT, protoss has constant chrono's on his probes, the terran is muling to keep up, but what happens when saturation is reached (wich doesnt take long in sc2) suddenly your doing something that the other races can't, getting more minerals then saturation allows.
and it is not like P has an easy time getting extra bases.
Imo Terrans really really underestimate the power of mules after saturation is reached. And what they allow you to do especially in more of the early game.
well terrans reach saturation much later than the other races and it is generally more difficult for terran to secure another expo. but here's the thing, chrono also boosts unit production time and upgrades, something a MULE can never do. queens can boost production by providing extra larva AND spread creep which gives speed boosts to their units AND gives vision of the map.
it's almost impossible to compare the macro mechanics of the races and it really seems stupid to fuss over how many clicks it takes for a terran to call down a MULE when clearly that is not what's causing this perceived "imbalance".
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 09:01 SiegeFlank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 08:38 TheYango wrote:
Haven't Artosis and Idra said on multiple occasions that making tanks capable of overkill again would effectively handle most, if not all the imbalance issues with Terran? According to Blizzard, from the July 15th Developer Chat: Show nested quote +"To help with perfomance, units do not fire all at once. There is a tiny offset between different units firing their weapons. From the users perspective it is almost simultaenous, but the shots are actually 1/8-1/16th of a second apart. Since units cannot target units that are already dead and since Siege Tanks hit their targets instantly, this creates the situation you are describing, where Siege Tanks waste fewer shots." While I do agree that allowing for tank overkill would probably fix the matchup, it just doesn't seem like it'll be a possibility any time soon.
I've already mentioned the implementation of this in other threads. Because projectile-firing units ARE capable of overkill (stalkers and vikings all can do so), all that needs to be done is to make the siege tank a projectile-firing unit with an invisible or minutely small projectile. Once you make it a projectile-firing unit and not an instantaneous attack, overkill is possible again. I'm curious whether this is possible in the editor--someone more skilled than I will have to test it. But it doesn't seem like the implementation would be overly complex.
|
On August 03 2010 09:02 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 08:55 Qikz wrote:
I don't understand the reasoning behind Lowering/Raising depots being overpowered, can someone please explain this to me? It's no different than just lifting off the barracks like in Broodwar.
Also, the reason why Spinecrawlers/Spore crawlers have a cooldown is because they can attack and it would seriously be op if they could just unburrow move, then insta burrow. So essentially what a siege tank does, but without the range, splash, and necessity to be on creep? :D. (Obviously not being too serious, but I don't think it would be extremely OP either).
i actually liked it when sunks could burrow faster, it was a nice replacement for lurkers and position oriented play. i dont know why they changed it, maybe some zvz issues?
|
On August 03 2010 08:59 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 08:57 pieisamazing wrote:On August 03 2010 08:55 enCore- wrote:
wow, that viking video sure as hell looks fake, vikings are not that fast nor do they kill a void ray with 3-4 shots.... looks like a poor attempt to prove your point. On August 03 2010 08:53 javy925 wrote:
The only valid suggestions made thus far in the thread have been:
1). cooldown on lowering/raising depots
2). cooldown on mules
3). making the minerals gained from salvaging bunkers 50-75%
The rest of the balance ideas have been incredibly hilarious and ludicrous, coming from whiny zerg players looking for any excuse for why they lose. If you want to nerf terran you need to first play terran so that you can properly propose ideas from the terran point-of-view. This is important because if you simply have the HURF DURF TERRAN SO OP mentality, then you neglect the other matchups terran have to deal with; very few of the zerg players in this thread have brought up the implications of their nerf ideas in TvP. It's a good thing Blizzard doesn't take threads like this seriously. I was going to stay out of this, but now I have to say something. Retarded posters like this are why these topics never accomplish anything. Then you should have stayed out of it because retarded posts like this accomplish nothing.
My post was spot on and a testimony to why these topics always turn into flame wars and end up getting locked. There can never be any civil discussion. Your post was whiny, illogical, and stupid, and only furthers my point.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 09:08 pieisamazing wrote:
My post was spot on and a testimony to why these topics always turn into flame wars and end up getting locked. There can never be any civil discussion. Your post was whiny, illogical, and stupid, and only furthers my point.
Actually, he does make a fair point. With the exception of changing Tanks and Thors, all of these changes would have equal effect on TvP, which I'm not convinced is a balance issue like TvZ is, particularly with regard to non-Tank units. As I said before, cite an interview where someone like Tester or Nony actually says bio TvP is an issue, and I'd be on board with the Marauder change. As it stands, most TvP complaints sound like whining uncorroborated by high-level opinion or statistics.
Changing the Siege Tank or the Thor are the most sensible TvZ-isolated changes. Between the two, if implementing Tank overkill is possible, then IMO it is a preferable solution, because while a Thor change is simply a nerf, Tank overkill makes it more beneficial to spread out and stagger your tanks--it rewards better play.
|
Personally, I think a buff to Nydus Network/Worms would be a welcome change. The problem is currently, they're worse than overlord drop in almost every possible way.
Overlord drop costs 200/200 research (you'll always get the move speed upgrade anyways for scouting).
Overlord drop allows you to deploy multiple units at once. Making it that much easier to defend the arrival of further forces.
Overlord drop is not shut down by 2 marines focus firing (Yes nydus worms are that weak. An unupgraded marine (that doesn't even use stim) has 5.8 DPS vs. a Nydus Worm, over 20 seconds that's 116 damage. This gives the marine 3 seconds to acquire the target. If the terran uses stim, the marine will deal 175 damage in 20 seconds. If you have two marines, you have over ten seconds to notice the worm on the mini map, stim and attack it (with 2 marines!)). In the same scenario with overlords, only one overlord would be killed (overlords and worms have the same amount of health). The situation is even worse if the terran was cunning enough to leave more than 100 minerals worth of forces in his base (or just having them pop during the drop).
Related to the above point, overlord drop is not immedietly shut down the second the enemy army arrives, since the worm is so incredibly fragile it will perish almost immedietly to focus firing, preventing any reinforcements.
Overlord drop has a possible retreat path. Once the worm is dead, all your units left are practically dead assuming terran has their army there (Unless you by some magic got your entire army through the network). With overlords there is at least the hope of escape. There is a small upside to this though, since the worm is so incredibly terrifying, many terrans will focus fire it, forcing their units to walk around your force while taking damage, if enough of it got through in time that is.
The only thing the worm really excels at is creating island expos, since your drones can safely retreat if it is under assault.
My suggestion to "fix" this is lowering the cost of the Nydus Network to 150/100 (instead of 150/200). Making it more accessible as well as making it more plausible to make two networks to allow double-nydusing, either for faster pumping of units to one location, or for doing it to two different bases at once. The latter is very powerful, you can Nydus somewhere the terran can see, usually they will panic and get all their forces there ASAP, then you Nydus another location after he notices, usually he will bide his time looking at the progress bar of the worm and calculating whether his forces will arrive in time, allowing your second worm to do more damage (especially if it's outside his vision). Also, as soon as the first worm is killed, you can use the now idle nydus network to create another worm at the second spot, doubling the "speed" of your assault).
Other than that. I think changing salvage to 50% return, and making the supply depot raise/lower animation take two, two and a half times as long are reasonable changes. It is INCREDIBLY frustrating chasing a terran force to their base in the early game, only to watch the supply depot instantly pop up to save them from certain death. If it took 2~ seconds for the depot to start blocking after the forces passed, it would allow atleast some zerglings to slip in and do some damage (or atleast scout).
Changing the MULE to have a 5-8 second cooldown would let 'em terran feel the pain of timed macro, but I don't feel it's strictly necessary.
Take my suggestions with a grain of salt though since I'm not a very skilled player. But I don't feel any of the above changes affects any of the match ups (more than making nydus worm more viable, and MULEs a tad more stressful to use).
|
On August 03 2010 09:12 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 09:08 pieisamazing wrote:
My post was spot on and a testimony to why these topics always turn into flame wars and end up getting locked. There can never be any civil discussion. Your post was whiny, illogical, and stupid, and only furthers my point. Actually, he does make a fair point. With the exception of changing Tanks and Thors, all of these changes would have equal effect on TvP, which I'm not convinced is a balance issue like TvZ is, particularly with regard to non-Tank units. As I said before, cite an interview where someone like Tester or Nony actually says bio TvP is an issue, and I'd be on board with the Marauder change. As it stands, most TvP complaints sound like whining uncorroborated by high-level opinion or statistics.
He is correct in saying that it will affect other matchups. What I meant is that offering a possible issue after spewing his whiny, terran-biased rant isn't going to further discussion, it's going to make people dismiss him as a troll which, looking at how... creatively worded his fence of text is, he probably is.
The first guy I pointed out didn't even read the OP, apparently.
|
On August 03 2010 09:12 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 09:08 pieisamazing wrote:
My post was spot on and a testimony to why these topics always turn into flame wars and end up getting locked. There can never be any civil discussion. Your post was whiny, illogical, and stupid, and only furthers my point. Actually, he does make a fair point. With the exception of changing Tanks and Thors, all of these changes would have equal effect on TvP, which I'm not convinced is a balance issue like TvZ is, particularly with regard to non-Tank units. As I said before, cite an interview where someone like Tester or Nony actually says bio TvP is an issue, and I'd be on board with the Marauder change. As it stands, most TvP complaints sound like whining uncorroborated by high-level opinion or statistics. Changing the Siege Tank or the Thor are the most sensible TvZ-isolated changes. Between the two, if implementing Tank overkill is possible, then IMO it is a preferable solution, because while a Thor change is simply a nerf, Tank overkill makes it more beneficial to spread out and stagger your tanks--it rewards better play.
i think one of the reasons why they don't just add overkill is because then they would have to change certain production aspects of it like cost / supply / build time, simply because it would no longer be as effective. if tanks did overkill you'd need a fairly large spread of tanks to be effective mid game and beyond which doesn't seem possible with the cost of current tanks.
|
On August 03 2010 09:21 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 09:12 TheYango wrote:On August 03 2010 09:08 pieisamazing wrote:
My post was spot on and a testimony to why these topics always turn into flame wars and end up getting locked. There can never be any civil discussion. Your post was whiny, illogical, and stupid, and only furthers my point. Actually, he does make a fair point. With the exception of changing Tanks and Thors, all of these changes would have equal effect on TvP, which I'm not convinced is a balance issue like TvZ is, particularly with regard to non-Tank units. As I said before, cite an interview where someone like Tester or Nony actually says bio TvP is an issue, and I'd be on board with the Marauder change. As it stands, most TvP complaints sound like whining uncorroborated by high-level opinion or statistics. Changing the Siege Tank or the Thor are the most sensible TvZ-isolated changes. Between the two, if implementing Tank overkill is possible, then IMO it is a preferable solution, because while a Thor change is simply a nerf, Tank overkill makes it more beneficial to spread out and stagger your tanks--it rewards better play. i think one of the reasons why they don't just add overkill is because then they would have to change certain production aspects of it like cost / supply / build time, simply because it would no longer be as effective. if tanks did overkill you'd need a fairly large spread of tanks to be effective mid game and beyond which doesn't seem possible with the cost of current tanks.
That wasn't really as true in BW (well they were cheaper, but DAMN effective). All you have to do is raise the dmg output. Overkill is less of an issue vs Protoss I would imagine since more shots need to hit a single unit anyways to kill it, so you'd be buffing them vs Zerg, TvT is a mirror, and compensating with Dmg vs Protoss.
|
On August 03 2010 09:23 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 09:21 mahnini wrote:On August 03 2010 09:12 TheYango wrote:On August 03 2010 09:08 pieisamazing wrote:
My post was spot on and a testimony to why these topics always turn into flame wars and end up getting locked. There can never be any civil discussion. Your post was whiny, illogical, and stupid, and only furthers my point. Actually, he does make a fair point. With the exception of changing Tanks and Thors, all of these changes would have equal effect on TvP, which I'm not convinced is a balance issue like TvZ is, particularly with regard to non-Tank units. As I said before, cite an interview where someone like Tester or Nony actually says bio TvP is an issue, and I'd be on board with the Marauder change. As it stands, most TvP complaints sound like whining uncorroborated by high-level opinion or statistics. Changing the Siege Tank or the Thor are the most sensible TvZ-isolated changes. Between the two, if implementing Tank overkill is possible, then IMO it is a preferable solution, because while a Thor change is simply a nerf, Tank overkill makes it more beneficial to spread out and stagger your tanks--it rewards better play. i think one of the reasons why they don't just add overkill is because then they would have to change certain production aspects of it like cost / supply / build time, simply because it would no longer be as effective. if tanks did overkill you'd need a fairly large spread of tanks to be effective mid game and beyond which doesn't seem possible with the cost of current tanks. That wasn't really as true in BW (well they were cheaper, but DAMN effective). All you have to do is raise the dmg output. Overkill is less of an issue vs Protoss I would imagine since more shots need to hit a single unit anyways to kill it, so you'd be buffing them vs Zerg, TvT is a mirror, and compensating with Dmg vs Protoss.
tanks also had far better support units in BW though. mnm tore through zerg units in TvZ and in TvP vulture support was simply amazing. there's really no equivalent for these in SC2 especially with tank cost as high as it is now.
|
retarded changes, buff zerg. problem solved.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
The OP looks more like a "let's nerf terran!" post than a "balancing" post
Nerfing Terran would balance. I agree that terran AA has crazy range in the form of vikings and thors and something should be changed imo.
|
On August 03 2010 08:38 TheYango wrote:
Don't see why there's all this hubbub.
Haven't Artosis and Idra said on multiple occasions that making tanks capable of overkill again would effectively handle most, if not all the imbalance issues with Terran? Isn't the only unit cited by Tester in his "Terran is overpowered" interview the Siege Tank?
The tank overkill is supposed to fix late game mech. Terran still has a ridiculous amount of early game options that can outright kill zerg. Judging from your icon you played Terran in brood war. It is like playing against a cheesy PvT player.
Imagine scouts had the strength of a guardian and could cloak (banshee)
You are unable to surround your base in turrets to prevent reaver drops and the reaver itself moves faster then almost all your units (preigniter hellion drops)
You don't have a tactical defense unit like the siege tank so you must rely on bunkers. His dragoons can rape your bunkers in 2:1 ratios (marauder:spines)
Protoss can build corsairs that kill your supply depots. (vikings)
The list goes on and on.
Also tester did mention siege tanks as a joke unit but he also said terran played properly can't lose. He didn't actually say whether the tank was the only cause so we can only speculate.
|
On August 03 2010 04:48 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2010 04:47 roliax wrote:
TBH I stopped reading because all I hear is "I KEEP LOSING TO TERRAN SO MAKE THEM EASIER TO BEAT"
sorry, no thanks.
i understand one, or maybe two things you might want to change. but redesigning the entire race? really?
play terran and see how painful it is to make supply depots. seriously, before you start writing a novel on it, PLAY IT. try to do it all these "overpowered" stuff and see how it feels. if you're winning games left and right then yes there's a problem. i guarantee you if you play terran, we're gonna see a new thread "nerf protoss" Good,I have Overlords wasting my freaking larva,AH AND THEY'RE EASY TO SNIPE,MR.TERRAN.
Good, I have scvs wasting my freaking minerals, AH AND THEY GET ATTACKED WHILE BUILDING, MR. ZERG.
seriously, play more, qq less. these are really insignificant.
like i said, play what you think is overpowered and see how it feels. if you're winning like a god then there's a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
