EPTAll T1/1.5 units should be approximately the same. One relative cheap, light damage dealer (marine, Zealot, zergling) and one armored damage dealer specialized against armor (marauder, stalker, Roach). So far so good. Only they should also all have one unit that can shoot air (for now only marine and stalker) and one unit that has a range of 6 (only stalker and marauder). I think if the roach can shoot shoot air and has a range of 6, it can handle harass much much more easily and the roach can put some pressure on a wall.
TvZ Balance Suggestions - Page 47
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
All T1/1.5 units should be approximately the same. One relative cheap, light damage dealer (marine, Zealot, zergling) and one armored damage dealer specialized against armor (marauder, stalker, Roach). So far so good. Only they should also all have one unit that can shoot air (for now only marine and stalker) and one unit that has a range of 6 (only stalker and marauder). I think if the roach can shoot shoot air and has a range of 6, it can handle harass much much more easily and the roach can put some pressure on a wall. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On August 09 2010 16:12 TheYango wrote: One thing worth pointing out is that a surprising number of the early-game Terran options can be whittled down with smart map design that doesn't blatantly favor these Terran options: 1) Tighter naturals allow for wall-ins that make it possible to block Hellion harassment without the need for teching. The only map that currently allows for Zerg wall-ins in a reasonable fashion is Lost Temple. Unfortunately, points 2 and 4 make LT just as Terran-favored. Sure a tighter natural makes Terran harrass easier to defend, but it also makes it A LOT easier to defnd for the Terrans. They have Tanks and Hellions and bunkers to defend choke points pretty easily, so is that really an "advantage" for Zerg? Asking for tight naturals seems like caring only for the next five seconds and not for the state of play in five minutes. If a map like LT is built with very tight naturals it is much easier for Terrans (and Protoss) to expand and defend those. But as Zerg you really need to outbase the opposition to win. A tight natural makes it harder to assault the base with ground forces, but do you think that Zerg can win an all out air war? The entrance to a base on the ground will only make a base SEEM more secure against a Terran, the harrass will come a minute later while you feel secure behind your defenses at the entrance. The Hellion harrass will be in the form of a Medivac with four Hellions (which is done already anyways and is more unpredictable). Since you dont expect it and arent defending against it this harrass will be even more deadly than what is happening now. On August 09 2010 16:12 TheYango wrote: 2) Ledges like the ones on Lost Temple favor Terran harassment due to the range of Thors and Tanks, and the cliff-jumping mechanics of Reapers. The ledges have been imbalanced since the map's inception in SC1, and I have no clue why Blizzard though it would be balanced to keep them in. Even with community map-makers making balance changes, the SC1 version of Lost Temple was still 57% T>Z and 55% T>P. 1. With Colossi and their Thermal Lance upgrade it is not only Terrans which are favored by cliffs. Kulas Ravine is a nice examplpe, because Stalkers with Blink can (ab)use those cliffs to defend / assault. If you have no meaningful cliffs the Reapers are just expensive fast Marines that dont shoot air and which require a tech lab. 2. No map will ever be "fair and balanced" for all three races, a ratio of 55% / 57% win / loss is pretty close to 50% and thus pretty close to balanced as there can be. Sure Protoss and Terrans have things which work great with cliffs, but Zerg arent really using their burrowed Roach movement to the fullest atm. Sure its an upgrade, but it works for all Zerg ground units and it forces detection to be developed / spent from the opponent. If you do not use it you are practially giving the opponent some extra resources he otherwise would have to spend to kill you. So the call for fewer cliffs is not that much justified if Burrow doesnt get "nerfed" at the same time. Its not the Terran / Protoss' fault "you Zergs" arent using all your abilities. On August 09 2010 16:12 TheYango wrote: 3) Longer rush distances (or, alternatively, a shorter Spine Crawler build time) removes the need to invest too heavily in defending early-game all-ins before they actually happen. Giving Spine Crawlers a 50 second build time on maps with 30 second rush distances is just stupid. The bare-bones defense mechanic was pivotal to zerg in SC1, and neutering that ability to defend at the last minute is obviously going to hurt zerg in the early game. This is actually the real solution to the "Zerg problem": LARGER MAPS. Both Protoss and Terran armies have one disadvantage: relatively slow moving armies. It isnt true for all the units, but Colossi, Immortals, Thors and Siege Tanks all move very slowly, but if the Zerg can not outmaneuver these armies due to the relatively small size of the maps the Zerg speed is not an advantage. So we need larger maps with the same terrain features. It wont matter that the Terran has set up a defensive siege Tank position somewhere, you simply run around it and attack his base. On August 09 2010 16:12 TheYango wrote: 4) 2-high cliffs or impassable terrain can minimize the area which zerg needs to cover against reaper harassment. IMO something needs to be done about this--it's just silly that the one race that doesn't have a build-anywhere mechanic is the one with the greatest need to cover the entirety of the cliffs around their main. Add to that some maps with well-spread defensible bases that allow zerg to go up to 6 or 7 bases, and enough room in the middle for reasonable flanking to take place, and this matchup might look a little less imbalanced. Making a base "immune" to Reaper harrass basically eliminates that unit from the game. It isnt as bad for Stalker with Blink, but these units were designed with the assault capability in mind and it should not be negated with map design. An easy solution would be to reduce the build time of Spine crawlers from 50 to 30, so you have the option of building one / some to defend against Reapers, but this also leaves you the option to screw up by not building them and taking the risk. That puts the choice in the players hand and it would be the best solution. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: Sure a tighter natural makes Terran harrass easier to defend, but it also makes it A LOT easier to defnd for the Terrans. They have Tanks and Hellions and bunkers to defend choke points pretty easily, so is that really an "advantage" for Zerg? Asking for tight naturals seems like caring only for the next five seconds and not for the state of play in five minutes. If a map like LT is built with very tight naturals it is much easier for Terrans (and Protoss) to expand and defend those. But as Zerg you really need to outbase the opposition to win. A tight natural makes it harder to assault the base with ground forces, but do you think that Zerg can win an all out air war? Attacking into a Terran's natural is suicide regardless of the map. A zerg's goal is going to be to out-expand the Terran and to try and get a flank mid-map to crush the Terran push. This doesn't mean keeping him off his natural, but abusing his immobility and going up to 5-7 bases. A defensible natural is going to be far more favorable for zerg, ESPECIALLY when he's spreading out to take a 3rd, 4th, or 5th base at another natural. On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: The entrance to a base on the ground will only make a base SEEM more secure against a Terran, the harrass will come a minute later while you feel secure behind your defenses at the entrance. The Hellion harrass will be in the form of a Medivac with four Hellions (which is done already anyways and is more unpredictable). Since you dont expect it and arent defending against it this harrass will be even more deadly than what is happening now. This isn't relevant, because walling in doesn't take an additional expenditure of resources. Placing your Roach Warren and Evo Chamber at your natural don't hinder your ability to block preigniter drops. Preigniter drops will always be a threat, regardless of map. But map setups that allow you to deflect ground-based Hellion harassment give you one less thing to worry about. On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: 1. With Colossi and their Thermal Lance upgrade it is not only Terrans which are favored by cliffs. Kulas Ravine is a nice examplpe, because Stalkers with Blink can (ab)use those cliffs to defend / assault. If you have no meaningful cliffs the Reapers are just expensive fast Marines that dont shoot air and which require a tech lab. 2. No map will ever be "fair and balanced" for all three races, a ratio of 55% / 57% win / loss is pretty close to 50% and thus pretty close to balanced as there can be. The issue is not that 55% and 57% are bad ratios, but that the map is T>P by 55% when traditionally, it's 55% the other way. On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: This is actually the real solution to the "Zerg problem": LARGER MAPS. Both Protoss and Terran armies have one disadvantage: relatively slow moving armies. It isnt true for all the units, but Colossi, Immortals, Thors and Siege Tanks all move very slowly, but if the Zerg can not outmaneuver these armies due to the relatively small size of the maps the Zerg speed is not an advantage. So we need larger maps with the same terrain features. It wont matter that the Terran has set up a defensive siege Tank position somewhere, you simply run around it and attack his base. It's also worth noting that I don't see enough defensive nydus usage. Large maps will favor Zergs and to a lesser extent Protoss because of their ability to move units via warp gate/nydus worm. Terran has no comparable mobility options, meaning they have a much harder time both attacking and defending when expansions are more spread out. On August 09 2010 20:14 Rabiator wrote: Making a base "immune" to Reaper harrass basically eliminates that unit from the game. It isnt as bad for Stalker with Blink, but these units were designed with the assault capability in mind and it should not be negated with map design. I didn't intend for the base to be immune, but compare Blistering Sands to Lost Temple. On Blistering there are a few places to cover with regard to reaper harassment, and it's still viable, but it's also defensible once you can cover those spots. LT's ledges take it to an extreme--it's simply impossible to cover such a large area of ledge terrain. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I didn't intend for the base to be immune, but compare Blistering Sands to Lost Temple. On Blistering there are a few places to cover with regard to reaper harassment, and it's still viable, but it's also defensible once you can cover those spots. LT's ledges take it to an extreme--it's simply impossible to cover such a large area of ledge terrain. Not that I'm saying it's not impossible, but do you even need to cover all of the ledges? Surely if your mineral line is secure, it doesn't matter if they get up the cliff? | ||
|
LightKesta
United States26 Posts
maybe 3 or 4 units get out and them the Nydus gets obliterated in 2 seconds. Bye Nydus, bye wasted minerals and gas, and bye expo and the few units that popped out that are going to get their ass kicked. And even if you have to somehow nerf Ultralisks a bit to be more fair (attack power wise) they should be able to come out at the same time as a Colossus or a Thor about, that would be a lot more fair and we could make a lot more use of them that way. I expect Thor just about every game from a T, P it's more situational that you'll see the Colossus but the fact you have to tech all the way to hive to get the cavern.. On August 09 2010 18:33 GMarshal wrote: All the zerg are complaining about their inability to harass, while I grant that a tier 1.5 unit able to attack air is a necessity, the zerg have harassment techniques, things like burrowed infestors dropping fungal growth and infested marines on the enemy mineral lines, I´ll grant muta harass is no longer effective, but how about overlords with banelings on the probes or scvs? (I'll grant that maybe access to them should be faster as they all seem to require the lair which takes a while to get) but still the options are there. (I apologize if my post seems incoherent I have a sever case of jetlag and may not be making sense) Not really the best idea. Lair needed, then overlord ability to carry units, then faster overlord movement. I guess if the T is turtling like hell and leaves you alone maybe, but then it's safe to assume hell have a good amount of marines, turrets and thors, so by overlord. also if he has some tanks defending, which of course he would by then, the banelings and infested marines will get obliterated quickly. You don't see it from Z a lot because of how long it takes to do and how easy it is to thwart by the T, meanwhile he has plenty of options for harass. It works well if you've already got your opponent down pretty bad, though. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
Meldrath
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
tacrats
476 Posts
| ||
|
Kafkaesk
Germany140 Posts
For zerg there is no proper way to handle them, they are extremly cost efficient when it comes to ground to ground battle, and in combination with Thors, which can deal with Air & Ground at the same time, it's just ridiculous to handle this army composition. So what's the diffrence between BW and SC2 when it comes to tanks? At first there is the "non-overdamage" of course, but I think it wouldn't be right to exchange the better tank AI with the old stupid one. So how did Zerg handle tanks in BW? Mostly by disabling them e.g. Dark Swarm. Well, since the is no Dark Swarm anymore, here is my suggestion: Fungal Growth. If Fungal Growth would disable siege tank fire as it does disable Medivac healing, Zerg could handle those ground battles much easier. There are several good reasons for this change: A) Making Infestors more usable vs Mech in general. B) Making burrow more appealing since Infestors could move burrowed to the siege tanks, casting Fungal Growth on them. C) T3 tech would be much more viable, since there would be an actual reason to build an Infestationpit to get Infestors, not just for teching to T3. D) It would not lead into other unwanted balance issues in other match ups. So, make Fungal Growth disabling siege fire, and TvZ would be more fair AND interesting (in my opinion). | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On August 06 2010 18:37 IdrA wrote: i really wish people would stop making claims like that when they arent actually involved in the korean scene. ya zerg is reasonably well represented, but the zergs are people like me, junwi, cool, check whereas the terrans are 'ogsgon' 'simpsonprime' 'ogstop'. and if you watch them play or play against them they arent actually good. their macro falls apart at the drop of a hat, they dont micro beyond reaper kiting, they are unskilled nobodies winning purely on the strength of their race. were there any terran players of equivalent skill to the zerg players they would be going undefeated. as is thestc is the only pro sc1 terran taking it seriously i think, and for some reason or another he sucks. and he still won the big phase2 gom tournament. its the same situation on the us server, ya some zergs and a protoss can compete, but theyre mostly players who were already known, who are actually good at rts' and in most cases were good at sc1. and then you have random bad players, and lots of them, different ones every week, shooting up the ladder and placing in every tournament with terran. stupid people will argue that they arent unskilled just because they were unknown (and thats not my argument, theyre unskilled because theyre bad, but you people dont seem to understand that), but if thats the case how come theres almost no one previously unknown having similar success with z/p? there are a few, like huk, and while hes not particularly good hes shown consistent results across multiple patches. unlike the tens of terrans who've popped up since the beginning of phase 2. dunno how it can be any more obvious that theres something seriously wrong. Is IdrA's point seriously that every single terran player is bad? He can't think of any good ones at all? | ||
|
monterto
Canada103 Posts
| ||
|
cHaNg-sTa
United States1058 Posts
On August 09 2010 18:54 GGLCheck wrote: I really don't understand why Z have been complaining so much since the beginning. Don't tell me that Z is incredibly hard while terran is so easy, it s totally false. I have hard trouble against Z who go for fast expansion, defend it with spine crawlers, able to pump out like 12 to 16 drones in a row... then go for mutas, cracklings.. . You think terran mechanics are easy ? Wow. When your turret timing window is like 20 sec, you have to pump 10 turrets to deny any muta agression... you have to build tons of production buildings. And, hep. To build a supply depot you need to : - Select a SCV - B - S - Choose the build site - Click To build an overlord you need to : - Select a hatch (use hotkey) - S - V You can build 2 overlord in a row buy doing : - Hatch - S - V - V That's 4 actions, while a T have to do 8 (if you count the build site selection as an action) It s just fair that Mules are not a big macro concern, otherwise terran would become a turtling mechanic sim-city race. And what do you do about Scan ? Lol. You NEED scan as a T, to take care of burrowed roaches, to scout the expands or units, you don't have overlords... Of course a Viking can do the trick, but an isolated viking is useless and costs very much. For me TvZ is just balanced or at least it will become balanced. Lots of zerg are doing well against terran abusing their map control, speed, denying expand while expanding everywhere... flanking, backstabbing, forcing the opponent to build defense and turtle. On cliff drop maps it can be hardcore for Z but otherwise it s just ok... And if Z macro is a bit harder with queens, the micro is just not so hard, with the nearly auto surround... It's just ok. The rest are details. Pump 10 turrets to deny muta aggression? Are you kidding? A couple of turrets with repair /marines rape the initial muta group. Not to mention Thors completely shut it down. Did you just use the amount of actions needed to build a supply to why Terran is harder..? Why would the build site be an action anyways? not to mention you can just select 2 scvs and build 2 depots and save your "precious" actions. Why don't I go back to every single hatchery every 25 energy and constantly pump larva and constantly spreading creep (omg I have to find a building site for the creep every single time too), both of which are absolutely necessary. While you're MULE happens ever 50 energy and you just select a mineral patch. An isolated viking is useless and costs very much? LOL. This 9 ranged AA unit costs a whopping 75 gas. When you get a nice pack of them just running around and killing overlords, it's extremely annoying for any zerg player. Denying expansions are nice. Too bad 1 base play is so strong in this game, not to mention the maps are tiny. Oh wait, outside of zerglings, Terran's mobility is nearly as good as Zerg's. A PF + turrets + a couple of tanks makes it so extremely cost efficient in defending a push. Auto surround? Are you kidding me? How bout everything is auto-ball from Terran? How are you supposed to surround something you can't even get to with zerglings? I'm not trying to say that zerg cannot compete in this matchup because I can do decently well when I random this matchup, but it's really difficult and requires constant attention. Zerg really has limited options in how to approach Terran while Terran can do tons of effective strategies. | ||
|
billyX333
United States1360 Posts
On August 10 2010 01:31 kajeus wrote: Is IdrA's point seriously that every single terran player is bad? He can't think of any good ones at all? what type of points are you looking for? edit- nevermind, misread | ||
|
Toun
Sweden59 Posts
On August 10 2010 01:43 monterto wrote: Am I the only zerg on these forums who spawns larva from the mini-map? I tried to get used to it but I often found myself missing the hatch and lost 4 larva in that cycle, that added up alot in a 30 min game. I think it's alot more convinient to bind each queen to a key and double tap to center, I seldom go beyond 4 queens so I have the groups for it. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On August 10 2010 01:31 kajeus wrote: Is IdrA's point seriously that every single terran player is bad? He can't think of any good ones at all? What? Who cares? He just complimented Huk. | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
Haha, fair enough. It just seems bizarre that a top NA zerg, in thinking about terran imba, can't explain the lack of straight-up terran dominance with anything but: "Well... there are zero good terrans right now. All the good players are protoss or zerg." | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On August 10 2010 02:04 kajeus wrote: Haha, fair enough. It just seems bizarre that a top NA zerg, in thinking about terran imba, can't explain the lack of straight-up terran dominance with anything but: "Well... there are zero good terrans right now. All the good players are protoss or zerg." there are no good terrans but terran has still been dominant. up until the slush/sheth finals all of the gosucoaching/iem/zotac/esl type cups since phase2 had been won by terrans, vast majority of the top 4's were terrans. a terran, thestc, who is actually quite bad, won the gom individual tournament held during phase. thestc/ensnare, 2 terrans, were the finalists in the korean tournament hosted by garimto a couple days ago. and, as i said, all those terrans getting placing in foreigner tournaments, its different ones every week. if you look at zerg and protoss results, a very small number of people who were already known to be good sc1 or war3 players are responsible for almost everything. but with terran thereve been a lot of different unknown or flat out bad players who recently started placing in tournaments. because its the race thats responsible for the results, not the players. oh and the gom team league during phase2, ogs had ensnare up. he beats 2 z's basically with just reapers and prime gives up and sends out 3 mediocre terrans for the rest of the matches, despite having people like anypro and junwi sitting on the bench. | ||
|
Oldboysctv
Canada58 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
koppik
United States676 Posts
Are you sure you're not being overly critical of Terran play? I'm sure there are errors made by each of these players. It's not like even the best Zerg players play near perfectly. Like, in mechanics, oGs.Gon for instance keeps a steady 200 Sc2apm (280 actual APM) even 20 minutes into the game. He's an ex-BW B-teamer. And he's kind of doing poorly. I mean, he topped the ladder at one point, but pretty much solely through mass-gaming given his okay-ish win rate. | ||
| ||
