| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 11:50 XazXio wrote: yes i have played zerg :O its shocking but i use to play zerg and also random for a long time and honestly zvt wasnt too hard because i saw their units and got the counter units, not that hard. What counters mech? | ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
Ultralisks duh, just get like 5 of them before tanks are out. | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 12:12 Medzo wrote: Ultralisks duh, just get like 5 of them before tanks are out. . . .what? I'm assuming that was a joke. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On August 12 2010 12:12 Medzo wrote: Ultralisks duh, just get like 5 of them before tanks are out. like duh, obviously... why didn't I think of this earlier? damnit.. | ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
On August 12 2010 12:06 MythicalMage wrote: Thors ground attack has a range of six, and that has nothing to do with TERRAN. That's a map flaw, not a Terran flaw. Right now the maps we are playing on are basically the equivelents of lost temple and python both of which were zerg hating maps. However, I don't know if we'll ever see any improvement in this regard. Problem is that blizzard made their ladder match making so good while at the same time banning all non official ladders. So unfortunately, unless blizzard grows some brains and actually changes up the maps every season, which they won't since they stated that only blizzard maps will be used in the ladder since they are "less technical", everyone will use and learn the ladder maps. Hopefully, blizzard implements some best of both worlds scenario by having their crappy "less technical" ladder maps at low levels and user made balanced maps at the higher levels of diamond league. But, I doubt it, I mean look at the WC3 blizzard hasn't updated those maps in forever, as a result you have imbalance and stagnation. | ||
|
epik640x
United States1134 Posts
| ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 12:17 RifleCow wrote: Where did they state this? I'm pretty sure they even said they would add in user made maps to the ladder rotation. I believe they did something similar in Warcraft 3, or at least regularly made maps. They're pushing for these premium map thing and that'll probably tie in too. Problem is that blizzard made their ladder match making so good while at the same time banning all non official ladders. So unfortunately, unless blizzard grows some brains and actually changes up the maps every season, which they won't since they stated that only blizzard maps will be used in the ladder since they are "less technical"-- --everyone will use and learn the ladder maps. Hopefully, blizzard implements some best of both worlds scenario by having their crappy "less technical" ladder maps at low levels and user made balanced maps at the higher levels of diamond league. But, I doubt it, I mean look at the WC3 blizzard hasn't updated those maps in forever, as a result you have imbalance and stagnation. Warcraft three is an old game. They don't exactly have much incentive to make/publish new maps for it. This is Starcraft 2. This is their big game this year. They want it to be the best it can be. | ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
On August 12 2010 12:21 MythicalMage wrote: Where did they state this? I'm pretty sure they even said they would add in user made maps to the ladder rotation. I believe they did something similar in Warcraft 3, or at least regularly made maps. They're pushing for these premium map thing and that'll probably tie in too. Warcraft three is an old game. They don't exactly have much incentive to make/publish new maps for it. This is Starcraft 2. This is their big game this year. They want it to be the best it can be. "-- Blizzard not planning on adding Korean BW professional style maps to map pool. Ladder maps need to be accessible to all levels of players and not be too technical. They're happy with tournaments using their own sophisticated maps." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653 Though it says in this that they are planning to add community maps. | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On August 12 2010 12:28 RifleCow wrote: Community maps then. A different name for the same thing. Anything other than Blizzard maps is good. "-- Blizzard not planning on adding Korean BW professional style maps to map pool. Ladder maps need to be accessible to all levels of players and not be too technical. They're happy with tournaments using their own sophisticated maps." http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653 Though it says in this that they are planning to add community maps. | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
-- TvZ stats show approx 50/50 balance. Thinks there may be an issue with tanks, but stats don't show it yet. They will be watching closely this matchup. Fifty fifty balance. That's all one could ever need. With changed maps, that will even out to be prefect fifty fifty. Hell, it might even favor Zerg.-- Browder on why they can't remove tank overkill: "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." And tanks. Them shooting after each other seems subtle enough to make an impact without breaking the game. Shows they care about balancing. | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On August 12 2010 10:22 MythicalMage wrote: I've yet to see ANYONE spread mutas versus a thor in a replay or a high level casted game. Go to sc2rep.com and download any ZvT featuring CheckPrime. Check is the king of muta-ling and beats thors pretty handily. On August 12 2010 10:28 Dave[9] wrote: You don't play zerg....do you? Who the fuck 1 hatch muta's ZvT? Well, Sen, for one. Sen actually popularized 1hatch mutas ZvT. CheckPrime is another easy example, given that I've already talked about him in this post. You guys need to look around at some good zergs. IdrA is but one playstyle -- and perhaps not the best one. | ||
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
On August 12 2010 10:28 Dave[9] wrote: You don't play zerg....do you? Who the fuck 1 hatch muta's ZvT? I've seen Sen do it. On August 12 2010 10:19 Cotonou wrote: I've seen thors stand up to one hell of a pounding in a mineral line. A surround of repairing SCVs negates a ton of damage. Right now Thors behave as AoE super-turrets in this position, and it takes a couple dozen mutas to break a single one. Just a thought but yes the thor will kill the 4 mutas if it gets surrounded by scvs and the thor gets repaired..... if the mutas are focusing on the the thor. once the scv's surround the thor tell your mutas (which should have a decent enough range to do this) to attack the scvs while they are spread out even if you lose your 4 mutas now you will greatly hurt the terrans economy. If you still decide to focus on the thor several of the scv's will still go down to the splash damage. Remember there is more to a battle then kills. "Dude that siege tank right there has 70 kills. Ooo but all of the kills were banelings that happened to be dropped in my mineral line which caused the nearby scvs all to die to." So even the said thor in this example gets surrounded and repaired but the terran loses 10 scv's each time. I as a zerg player might consider that worth the investment of 4 mutas. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
Remember when mech was sooo not "viable"? Blizzard nerfed tanks damage and now mech is unstoppable!! Yay I really don't see imbalance and Im trying to look objectively. People keep trying to "prove" that Terran macro is too easy, Terran micro is too easy and Mech is just too damn easy to win with. I think it just looks easy when your hydras get blown to shit by 5 well positioned tanks. In most games that I play and even watch, the Zerg player goes way too hard into Hydralisks and just keeps sending 12 or so at a time at the Terran player. Zerg players can't do army exchanges because there army producing building is the same as their worker producing building. Every dead hydralisk could have been a drone. I feel that alot of terran players just found out that if you harass zerg they stay all nice and quiet in their base until your slow glass tanks get across the map and into position. Best explanation: some noisy zerg players lost 5 in a row and spread the word about the "imbalance" of TvZ, zerg players read threads about the imbalance of TvZ and now just roll over and take it when they get matched up against terran, instead of trying to find out a new style. Zerg needs to get creative. Spend 30 minutes in a build order tester and see what you can push out with at 5 minutes. I don't know what I can say to you guys other than gl hf. Also. Dont statistics actually show that Zerg players are slightly ahead of terran in win %? | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
That is a too simple question. "Mech" <> "mech" and there are three totally different units to handle and no general answer can be given. Also you need to include the terrain into your deliberations as the cliff on LT easily demonstrates. Hellions and their harrass - Spine Crawlers (and dont just build two) Hellions on the battlefield - Roaches or lots of Hydras ON A CREEP HIGHWAY (and with burrow for an ambush) Tanks - 1 Brood Lord and enough corrupters to keep Vikings away, plus a few queens for Transfuse Thor - Zerglings ... The problem of dealing with mech comes from the mix of units which are used. Marines for extra anti-air, a few Thors to neutralize Mutalisks, ... Personally I would say the problem doesnt lie in one unit, but rather in the critical number of them. To "counter" this number you simply need to harrass and counter the economy. The units which Zerg always whine about are rather expensive and forcing the Terran into a defensive posture gives the Zerg the time to expand and build an unbeatable economy. Mech also relied upon building lots of turrets and bunkers out in the field and I wonder why no Zerg ever brings a few Spore and Spine Crawlers out to build a strategic position. It is probably considered as too expensive again. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On August 12 2010 17:04 Rabiator wrote: Mech also relied upon building lots of turrets and bunkers out in the field and I wonder why no Zerg ever brings a few Spore and Spine Crawlers out to build a strategic position. It is probably considered as too expensive again. This has to be the best suggestion I've seen a terran player give yet. Spine crawlers can't even hold back an early game marine/marauder push, but now we're supposed to use them offensively against siege tanks (lol 13 range). Cost is not the complaint, its general lack of ANYTHING effective that's the complaint. I got attacked by a 1 base terran today, he came into my base with 22 marines, 1 marauder, and 6 medivacs. I had 10 banelings and 5 mutalisks. The banelings killed off 14 marines, by the time the mutalisks got in position, all his units were full hp again, so after doing no damage and losing 2 mutalisks, I backed off and queued up 2 more mutas and 12 more zerglings while he killed my spire. You know what happened? You know what happened, all my units died and he won the game. 8 marines, 6 medivacs and 1 marauder > zerg. Gogo 13.5hp/sec heal, wish I had something like that... oh wait, I did, they nerfed it into oblivion. | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
Then I actually read the whole post. These are pretty much the exact same changes that I have been thinking would be awesome to implement myself along with a few others that I hadn't considered (esp the supply depot mechanic). Quality post, though I reply to the OP before I read the other pages of post, and am sure there is quite a bit of Terran haters in this thread. (Now I shall read the other responses.) Edit: Holy shit, 60 pages of responses? Lol. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 12 2010 17:33 heishe wrote: i have no idea why mule doesn't have a cooldown, seriously. Probably an awkward compromise given the fact that if you use spawn larva, you can drone/army whore off the saved larvae, but you can't do the same with MULEs (e.g. if there's no immediate benefit, you can save spawned larvae for later, but you can't do the same with MULEs because of timed life). Perhaps something like putting MULE on a CD, but letting you load them into the OC to prevent their timed life from expiring is the appropriate solution? | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On August 12 2010 17:36 TheYango wrote: Probably an awkward compromise given the fact that if you use spawn larva, you can drone/army whore off the saved larvae, but you can't do the same with MULEs (e.g. if there's no immediate benefit, you can save spawned larvae for later, but you can't do the same with MULEs because of timed life). Perhaps something like putting MULE on a CD, but letting you load them into the OC to prevent their timed life from expiring is the appropriate solution? how does not being able to save mules matter at all? at least to me there seems to be no logical reason to wait 2 mins and then using the mules instead of using them right then and there (if you could only use 1 at a time because of the cooldown I mean). if you use the mule you can save up the minerals for later which is the same thing. | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
On August 03 2010 05:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Hate the supply depot change. Just too convoluted =/ How about requiring an SCV to salvage a structure (but maybe allow it for more structures in return - ie turrets)? I don't see a problem with medivacs healing - it's not like anyone thinks terran bio is imbalanced TvZ right? I like the viking change, but I would also like to see the thors damage going back up to 8+6 instead of 6+6; it's annoying that you have to build vikings to counter non-light air units. I'm fine with both units having their range lowered. I would agree with the salvage change. Salvaging turrets might seem "imba" from the Zerg perspective, but honestly, I would LOVE to see a Terran salvaging a ton of turrets, only to suck on Glaive Wurm 2 minutes later. But I really disagree with the fact that your logic behind the Thor rebuff is that you find it "annoying that you have to build vikings to counter non-light air units." By that same logic, I find it annoying that siege tanks obliterate ground units. Therefore their damage should be nerfed? What I'm getting from your statement is that...I take it you would like a thor to counter every type of air unit, then...? Like, I just don't see the logic behind this. I understand the annoyance, but I don't see how that's a basis for buffing Thors again, at all... You SHOULD have to build Anti-Air units to counter non-light air units. Make terran more varied and dynamic, instead of striving for a 1-build strategy every game... (i.e...."Oh, I'll just make thors since they counter every air units" ---With the damage rebuff.) | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
