EPTImo queens should be able to stack larva spawns, I mean it's not like you could even use all the larva anyways.
TvZ Balance Suggestions - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Imo queens should be able to stack larva spawns, I mean it's not like you could even use all the larva anyways. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 03 2010 18:49 CharlieMurphy wrote: Another good point about the terran macro mechanic is that if a player forgets to spawn larva he can't stack them on his hatch, his queen is just stuck with extra mana. However as a protoss he can mass chrono a bunch of gates and nexuses, and a terran can just drop a handful of MULE at once. Imo queens should be able to stack larva spawns, I mean it's not like you could even use all the larva anyways. Or put a cooldown on Chrono Boost and MULE. I would much rather have all the macro mechanics be hard than have them all be forgiving. | ||
|
Viruuus
Germany451 Posts
Well we can still plant more creep tumors, or use heals but thats still not fair compared to terrans who can just use many mules instead of being forced to use supply drop or scan when they forget to mule once | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
[QUOTE]On August 03 2010 16:18 Everlong wrote: + Show Spoiler + KotB.. Idra demolished qxc, than Tester, there you go.. [/QUOTE] + Show Spoiler + IdrA practices 12 hours a day on a programing team. QXC doesn't. So yeah, professional gamers tend to beat good gamers. If he would have lost, (excluding to early all-in pushes/cheese, because anyone can win with that) then that would be proof of a balance problem. The ZvP match up is fine, why are you bringing up the finals. Im buying this argument, but take a look at it as a whole picture. That tournament was full of great players each capable of beating each other. Idra loosing 0-2 to Tester and barely 2-1 over TLO is documenting, that its not only Idra, that is proffesional gamer that practices 12 hours a day. How do you know that QXC doesn't practise? Obviously he does since he is concidered the best American Terran player? | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
The problems with TvZ are: Zerg has no positional unit/caster besides the baneling, which doesn't really replace the lurker at all. Zerg has no way to gain positional control without having "stuff" there. Zerg cannot deal with ledge tanks/thors, and even reapers on ledges can be miserable. Maps need to be rebalanced around this. Zerg needs multiple attack paths, because they lose in head on fights so easily. Most maps only have 1 or 2 major attack paths. Maps like LT, Kulas, and even Metalopolis are fairly constricted. Remember Destination? That map was considered constricted with 4 attack paths and backdoor shenanigans. Basically, the biggest problem with TvZ right now = maps. | ||
|
BabelFish
United States14 Posts
On August 03 2010 10:10 Apolo wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if those are based on the publicly visible ladder points, they are not based on the "true" matchmaking number blizzard uses behind the scenes.How is it that most players are terran? Count=5000 Top=5000 Terran=1452 Zerg=1253 Protoss=1885 Random=410 1st Protoss -433 2nd Terran -199 3rd Zerg Protoss 38% Terran 29% Zerg 25% Random 8% Then suddenly on the top 100 Terran 42% Protoss 31% Zerg 25% Random 2% I don't understand why some people have trouble with the words "imbalance" and "overpowered" and start throwing bits as if everyone that says the game is imbalanced are kids who lost games and came to complain to the forums because they don't have the skills to beat "x" combo of units / strategy. Use your brains for once. See that it's several times more likely that the matchups are imbalanced than not, and the people saying the game is already balanced are the ones that should be laughed at and not the other way around. Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118212 | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On August 03 2010 18:57 Floophead_III wrote: Not a single one of your supposed nerfs is well thought out, and proof that you don't understand terran. Our other matches are extremely dependent on many of the things you want to change, and those things don't even seriously impact TvZ. The problems with TvZ are: Zerg has no positional unit/caster besides the baneling, which doesn't really replace the lurker at all. Zerg has no way to gain positional control without having "stuff" there. Zerg cannot deal with ledge tanks/thors, and even reapers on ledges can be miserable. Maps need to be rebalanced around this. Zerg needs multiple attack paths, because they lose in head on fights so easily. Most maps only have 1 or 2 major attack paths. Maps like LT, Kulas, and even Metalopolis are fairly constricted. Remember Destination? That map was considered constricted with 4 attack paths and backdoor shenanigans. Basically, the biggest problem with TvZ right now = maps. not really, zvt vs bio you can fight straight up and vs mech they arent going to be attacking anyway. the problem zvt is the early game, the number of options terran has and the difficulty zerg has in dealing with them, and the ineffectiveness of early/mid game air vs pure mech. its too easy to nullify mutas, lets terran focus on tanks and you arent supposed to be able to beat tanks on the ground. the maps are a much bigger problem zvp where you have to deal with the stalker collosus ball right before hive comes out. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On August 03 2010 19:14 IdrA wrote: not really, zvt vs bio you can fight straight up and vs mech they arent going to be attacking anyway. the problem zvt is the early game, the number of options terran has and the difficulty zerg has in dealing with them, and the ineffectiveness of early/mid game air vs pure mech. its too easy to nullify mutas, lets terran focus on tanks and you arent supposed to be able to beat tanks on the ground. the maps are a much bigger problem zvp where you have to deal with the stalker collosus ball right before hive comes out. I know that you probably dont want to give us something like that, but could you post some ideas you have (cos Im sure you have), that would lead into SC2 being overall more balanced, especially TvZ matchup? | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On August 03 2010 19:14 IdrA wrote: not really, zvt vs bio you can fight straight up and vs mech they arent going to be attacking anyway. the problem zvt is the early game, the number of options terran has and the difficulty zerg has in dealing with them, and the ineffectiveness of early/mid game air vs pure mech. its too easy to nullify mutas, lets terran focus on tanks and you arent supposed to be able to beat tanks on the ground. the maps are a much bigger problem zvp where you have to deal with the stalker collosus ball right before hive comes out. Well I think maps have this tiny rush distance which makes both ZvP and ZvT miserable. You'd think Blizzard would realize we don't want to play on bloodbath every game... Also stalker/coli is a problem because corruptors are horrible units. Good job on that one Blizz. I did make a post somewhere earlier about nerfing turrets considerably - reducing their damage/damage to light, increasing build time, and lowering cost correspondingly. Basically, more like turrets from BW which you spammed 10 of everywhere. They already have the ability to gain 2 armor and 1 more range, and have 50 more hp. Everyone knows banshees and voidrays can't be stopped with turrets anyways because they do so much damage, so nerfing turrets won't do much there either. In fact it'll make it easier to defend cloak banshee because you can cover more area for the same cost. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On August 03 2010 19:21 Floophead_III wrote: Well I think maps have this tiny rush distance which makes both ZvP and ZvT miserable. You'd think Blizzard would realize we don't want to play on bloodbath every game... Also stalker/coli is a problem because corruptors are horrible units. Good job on that one Blizz. I did make a post somewhere earlier about nerfing turrets considerably - reducing their damage/damage to light, increasing build time, and lowering cost correspondingly. Basically, more like turrets from BW which you spammed 10 of everywhere. They already have the ability to gain 2 armor and 1 more range, and have 50 more hp. Everyone knows banshees and voidrays can't be stopped with turrets anyways because they do so much damage, so nerfing turrets won't do much there either. In fact it'll make it easier to defend cloak banshee because you can cover more area for the same cost. Dont you think that spammable turrets would give Terran ability to cover key areas even more than its done these days? I mean, that would help at all.. Imagine middle of the map occupied by 7-8 siege tanks + 10-15 turrets.. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
What's really going to be a bitch is when people work out intelligent ways of harassing zerg. Without scourge it's very hard to deal with. | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On August 03 2010 19:26 Everlong wrote: Dont you think that spammable turrets would give Terran ability to cover key areas even more than its done these days? I mean, that would help at all.. Imagine middle of the map occupied by 7-8 siege tanks + 10-15 turrets.. Ok, 75 mineral turrets = 33% more turrets. You're saying that you'd rather have 8-12 turrets of the current variety? Remember when turrets did 2x7+7 armored or something like that. I used to micro mutas pretty decently and use a very aggressive 2 hatch muta (4 mutas on spire pop so similar to BW 2 hatch muta) on T and it'd work. You can't do that anymore. I think actually dropping turret damage to something along the lines of 12+12 to armored would be fine. Honestly it's not like marines and thors aren't already fantastic vs mutas. You get range upgraded goliaths with splash and marines with range already upgraded in sc2 - you don't need uberturrets too. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On August 03 2010 19:32 Floophead_III wrote: Ok, 75 mineral turrets = 33% more turrets. You're saying that you'd rather have 8-12 turrets of the current variety? Remember when turrets did 2x7+7 armored or something like that. I used to micro mutas pretty decently and use a very aggressive 2 hatch muta (4 mutas on spire pop so similar to BW 2 hatch muta) on T and it'd work. You can't do that anymore. I think actually dropping turret damage to something along the lines of 12+12 to armored would be fine. Honestly it's not like marines and thors aren't already fantastic vs mutas. You get range upgraded goliaths with splash and marines with range already upgraded in sc2 - you don't need uberturrets too. I see. Well, the purpose of Mutas is to contain Terran in their base, right? I mean, of course you want to do some harrasment, kill several SCVs, etc.. But still, when there are 5-6 Mutas around your base, you feel probably safe to expand and get some map control. And I dont think any balancing on Turrets would change this. Terran would then just spam more Turrets and be safe as it is now.. Thor is actually the problem, Thor gives Terran way to secure base and move/expand out.. I might be wrong on this one, so you better correct me. :-) | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On August 03 2010 19:41 Everlong wrote: I see. Well, the purpose of Mutas is to contain Terran in their base, right? I mean, of course you want to do some harrasment, kill several SCVs, etc.. But still, when there are 5-6 Mutas around your base, you feel probably safe to expand and get some map control. And I dont think any balancing on Turrets would change this. Terran would then just spam more Turrets and be safe as it is now.. Thor is actually the problem, Thor gives Terran way to secure base and move/expand out.. I might be wrong on this one, so you better correct me. :-) The problem is T don't care if you keep them in their base for a little while. That's why I think Muta are becoming so ineffective. Getting map control keeps you in the game, doesn't give you an advantage. | ||
|
Glacius0
Netherlands66 Posts
My thoughts on ZvT: - T has a lot of harass options to keep Z busy - T has an easier time managing their bases (including the fact that they require less expansions to win) - ZvT is somewhat balanced in terms of actual strength, but it requires more skill/reaction from the Z player Small changes that lower the harass or make T work more (i.e. what you suggested) are changes that address these issues imo. Also, on an interesting side-note, I think Western culture is too focused on originality to allow for Blizzard to directly take an idea from a forum user and implement it. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
The problem is T don't care if you keep them in their base for a little while. That's why I think Muta are becoming so ineffective. Getting map control keeps you in the game, doesn't give you an advantage. Sorry, but I definitely think that getting map control is advantage. Saying that map control keeps you in the game is ridiculous, how is that supposed to be? | ||
|
Tirean
Great Britain36 Posts
You hardly see any Zerg player actually using his head and thinking this game of a strategy game instead of a Macro game. Zergs just believe if they macro macro macro macro they should win? Why should you win if you only macro and don't use that pretty little head of yours? If Zerg start to fight terran mech with there brains. I can gaurente the Zerg will win every single game vs Mech. (unless the zerg makes a huge blunder, but when ever someone makes a huge blunder if the opponent is good enough they will destroy you anyway.) So instead of the Zerg players complaining about everything being inbalanced just start getting out of the idea that Macro wins you everything. That is your downfall right now. You are the macro race so you think if you do that well you should win every game and nothing should stop you... why would SC2 work like that? | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On August 03 2010 19:19 Everlong wrote: i think the early game changes from the phase 2 patch should be brought back, zealot reaper barracks bunker build times up 5 seconds. they should also do one or both of 1.5 supply roach and tanks w/o smart fire, depending on how good tanks are in tvp. I know that you probably dont want to give us something like that, but could you post some ideas you have (cos Im sure you have), that would lead into SC2 being overall more balanced, especially TvZ matchup? with the current reaper bunker timings its literally impossible to expand before speedling or roach if they go reaper, fix that and it should be possible to deal with early terran bullshit. a massable roach or a less powerful tank would help with mech. but right now theyre in a really bad situation with tvz because if they fix the early game theyre gonna have to make big changes to banelings, unless theyre happy with tvz turning into pure boring mech games. because the only reason bio builds are still seeing use is that terran usually enters midgame with an advantage, and the strength of tanks kind of makes up for it, ling/baneling is prohibitively strong vs bio. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On August 03 2010 18:55 TheYango wrote: Or put a cooldown on Chrono Boost and MULE. I would much rather have all the macro mechanics be hard than have them all be forgiving. good point actually, I like that better. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On August 03 2010 19:21 Floophead_III wrote: Well I think maps have this tiny rush distance which makes both ZvP and ZvT miserable. You'd think Blizzard would realize we don't want to play on bloodbath every game... Also stalker/coli is a problem because corruptors are horrible units. Good job on that one Blizz. well the maps certainly dont help but its not the biggest issue with zvt | ||
| ||
