EPTTvZ Balance Suggestions - Page 70
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Weaponx3
Canada232 Posts
| ||
|
Samus
Australia47 Posts
6 out of the top 10 in my league of diamond are protoss.. 2 of em are terran 2 of em are zerg. Protoss are surely having problems.... */sarcasm* | ||
|
Vokasak
United States388 Posts
On August 15 2010 00:20 Weaponx3 wrote: vultures are awesome yes, but I havent heard people talk much that they come from a factory and you need both upgrades to make them which needs a machine shop which is where the balance is oppose to a reaper which u get at a barracks and you reasearch nothing.. Vultures are also extremly fragile. They are very good but balanced through upgrades. I'm yet to see more than two reapers ever being made in any high-level game. In my standard game I never get more than 5-6. If you're losing to 6-rax mass reaper or something retarded like that, you deserve to lose. The vulture is ten times the imbalanced the reaper can ever hope to be, especially since he costs 0 gas and doesn't get two-shotted by stalkers. | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
On August 14 2010 22:57 Vokasak wrote: No. I'm basically suggesting that because the beta is over, the time for sweeping radical changes (Like everything found in this thread) is over. I would disagree, if we look at any games there have always been radical changes to the multiplayer aspect in the first patch. You can't fix everything in beta. Thats the reality of it all and blizzard can't be held accountable for that. Obviously there are posts suggesting the thor splash removed, or the siege tank range decreased to 7. But I don't see why you should emphasize on those posts while there are tons of viable suggestions posted on this very thread. On August 14 2010 22:57 Vokasak wrote: The logic is really simple; Look at the roach's stats at the start of the beta. There is no way in hell that that unit deserves to be one supply. I'm actually having trouble believing that there's anyone out there who still thinks roaches at one supply was just fine, yet here you are. Do we really want to go back to the days of zergs making nothing but roaches? Fact: Before the supply nerf of roaches and after the armour nerf from 2 to 1 and healing rate nerf, nobody would actually go mass roach all game every game. This only happened in the beginning of the beta where they were, indeed, rediculously good. In that time the roach was a happy unit, not being the boring unit that kills ZvZ as speedlings stood a legitimate chance. They were a threat to mech due to being so tanky and numerable. They gave the zerg a solid midgame that wasn't relying completely on reactioning to the opponents build all the time. On August 14 2010 22:57 Vokasak wrote: I don't have a problem with people saying "This matchup is hard! Let's discuss ways to improve our play and overcome!". That would actually be really great and inspirational. But instead of that, we have people drooling on their keyboards while crying for nerfs and comparing the difficulty of MULEs and Chrono Boosts. This thread isn't nearly as noble as you're making it sound. This thread isn't what you are looking for. The title clearly says Balance suggestions. If that does not show that this thread, and its posts, are discussing possible changes to the game, then I'm not sure what will. Oh, and thanks for generalizing us as drooling crying nerds. That is really classy. Well played. Mind if I make a generalization of the terran players too? They come in these threads saying there's no problem at all because their 3 barracks MM build gets countered every two games or so. They cry imba whenever twelve ultralisks wreck their army and ragequit. They will abuse cliffs all games and call everyone who disagrees with terran being fine a noob and asks them to L2P. Now wasn't that nice? I'm sure you can agree that you were totally interrested in hearing my opinions and thoughts for you as a person. NOT. Everyone should stop posting generalizations of eachother. This isn't a kindergarten. We can all discuss perfectly fine without all the cursing and namecalling. Keep your view objective and stop giving everyone your opinion about a person and threads like these won't turn into some America vs Europe flamepit of trolls. | ||
|
Samus
Australia47 Posts
LETS GUT TERRAN UNTIL THEY ARE NOT COMPETITIVE then yes we can discuss it. | ||
|
Vokasak
United States388 Posts
On August 15 2010 00:35 Chaosvuistje wrote: I would disagree, if we look at any games there have always been radical changes to the multiplayer aspect in the first patch. You can't fix everything in beta. Thats the reality of it all and blizzard can't be held accountable for that. Obviously there are posts suggesting the thor splash removed, or the siege tank range decreased to 7. But I don't see why you should emphasize on those posts while there are tons of viable suggestions posted on this very thread. I still can't figure out why we're doing the balance suggestion thing at all instead of the "Let's figure out how to solve this problem with the set of tools we're given" thing. On August 15 2010 00:35 Chaosvuistje wrote:Fact: Before the supply nerf of roaches and after the armour nerf from 2 to 1 and healing rate nerf, nobody would actually go mass roach all game every game. This only happened in the beginning of the beta where they were, indeed, rediculously good. In that time the roach was a happy unit, not being the boring unit that kills ZvZ as speedlings stood a legitimate chance. They were a threat to mech due to being so tanky and numerable. They gave the zerg a solid midgame that wasn't relying completely on reactioning to the opponents build all the time. And Zergs don't have a solid midgame now? Pardon my ignorance, but it seems to me like you guys are doing just fine. If the complaints in this thread are to be taken seriously, it's the early game there there's supposedly something horribly wrong with. On August 15 2010 00:35 Chaosvuistje wrote:This thread isn't what you are looking for. The title clearly says Balance suggestions. If that does not show that this thread, and its posts, are discussing possible changes to the game, then I'm not sure what will. Right, but why are we resorting to balance suggestions less than two months in when we haven't even begun to exaust the potential of the game as it is? On August 15 2010 00:35 Chaosvuistje wrote: Oh, and thanks for generalizing us as drooling crying nerds. That is really classy. Well played. Mind if I make a generalization of the terran players too? They come in these threads saying there's no problem at all because their 3 barracks MM build gets countered every two games or so. They cry imba whenever twelve ultralisks wreck their army and ragequit. They will abuse cliffs all games and call everyone who disagrees with terran being fine a noob and asks them to L2P. I'm actually glad you brought up cliffs, because there's been something that's been gnawing at me for a while; What is it that you Zerg players have against cliffs, exactly? You're by far the most mobile race with by far the most imbalanced air units. Yet every time a map is released or discussed the zerg players say in unison: "This map favors Terran! It has one or more cliffs, therefore tanks will be imba!". Is this just another symptom of refusing to innovate to solve your "mech problem"? | ||
|
cuppatea
United Kingdom1401 Posts
| ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
On August 15 2010 01:54 cuppatea wrote: Call me crazy but I think we have more right to expect a balanced game now that it's been released and we're paying customers than we did while playtesting a pre-release beta for free (y'know, back when the forum was flooded with Terran tears). However, it is not stated in the agreement. So we cannot demand this. I think T units being powerful has something to do with campaign. I mean, if blizzard tweaks some hit points/damage in multiplayer it will ruin some scripts in campaign scenario. Maybe thats the problem why terran units cannot be easily nerfed (or others buffed). | ||
|
SlowBlink
United States102 Posts
[ I'm actually glad you brought up cliffs, because there's been something that's been gnawing at me for a while; What is it that you Zerg players have against cliffs, exactly? You're by far the most mobile race with by far the most imbalanced air units. Yet every time a map is released or discussed the zerg players say in unison: "This map favors Terran! It has one or more cliffs, therefore tanks will be imba!". Is this just another symptom of refusing to innovate to solve your "mech problem"? 200/200 upgrade + 100/100 upgrade to make zerg cliff drops at all possible, and even then, zerg only has 2 ranged units (if you consider roaches "ranged"). Terran can make a tech lab for 50/25, then pump out reapers which can just hop up to cliffs. Or they can just splurge for a 100/100 dropship and drop whatever they feel like. Mutalisks now get melted away by missile turrets, and corruptors are only good for anti-air/massive. That is the zerg problem with cliffs. | ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
On August 15 2010 00:46 Vokasak wrote: I'm actually glad you brought up cliffs, because there's been something that's been gnawing at me for a while; What is it that you Zerg players have against cliffs, exactly? You're by far the most mobile race with by far the most imbalanced air units. Yet every time a map is released or discussed the zerg players say in unison: "This map favors Terran! It has one or more cliffs, therefore tanks will be imba!". Is this just another symptom of refusing to innovate to solve your "mech problem"? Thors, vikings, reapers, tanks easily abuse cliffs. And the problem is that zerg, always has to be prepared for those. Even if terran never thinks of using cliffs. That forces zerg to follow certain builds and be prepared for something that might never happen. You are raging that zergs are not being innovative and yet you don't give any advice how to solve the problem. Please, be innovative and give us some suggestions. Apparently, we are not as intelligent as T players. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On August 15 2010 03:34 bokeevboke wrote: However, it is not stated in the agreement. So we cannot demand this. I think T units being powerful has something to do with campaign. I mean, if blizzard tweaks some hit points/damage in multiplayer it will ruin some scripts in campaign scenario. Maybe thats the problem why terran units cannot be easily nerfed (or others buffed). Single Player and Multiplayer use different stats. They said in an old interview that they eventually had to split them apart. that's why phoenixes in single player don't move shoot. | ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
On August 15 2010 04:09 Logo wrote: Single Player and Multiplayer use different stats. They said in an old interview that they eventually had to split them apart. that's why phoenixes in single player don't move shoot. Thanks for info. Now I see my idea was stupid. Of course they would split them. | ||
|
Keren
United States67 Posts
| ||
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
On August 13 2010 21:39 Consummate wrote: No kiting is equatable to what sentries can provide? Now I understand why Terrans won't concede their team is overpowered, they use the most ignorant statements to justify balance. You see, there are 2 things terribly wrong with that statement. 1. The number of sentries required to create an "unkitable" envrionment for Marauders depends on the terrain. This pretty much means you will need atleast 6 sentries for most situations, you will need to block behind the marauders, and behind your zealots so they're locked in. You see, in many situations, that is going to be quite A LOT of sentries. That means that for every sentry you put in, I put in another Marauder. 2. That assumes no Marauder micro whatsoever. If we assume all you're doing is ensuring they can't kite backwards (very stupid to assume), then you would be correct. But the fact that you can run *gasp* forward/up/down to kite them from another direction, means that you're wrong. @trevf Your destroyed logic and facts with a presumptuous statement that I think Terran are overpowered because I lose to them. I am kinda sick of having to explain that Siege tanks are the most cost efficient unit in the game that counters all ground units and that Marauders can kite their counter without being touched with a 50/50 upgrade to get a "lol get better" type of response, which is a pretty typical response that only enhances the fact that they can't admit they have been winning (and embarrassingly -losing) with the easy team. Pretty pathetic Im sure any intelligent person on these forums can guess what race I play from my screenname. It is one of the screen names I used in BW and when sc2 came out I saw no reason to switch races yes the zerg would have of reminded me a bit more of terran BW play but I just liked being terran. I don't play terran to jump on the bandwagon or because I want to <quote> Be OP <quote>. Its just because I have liked the terrans since I purchased BW way back in the day. Likewise my friend has done the same with protoss. Game came out he saw no reason to abandon the protoss. Every once in a while we switch roles during one of our switches he attempted to marauder rush me and just as was spelled out here the sentries and lots killed the marauders and marines for much less in cost. Less in cost you say. But sentries are 100 gas.. The sentries always lived to see more and more battles after the first handful I rarely had to build more. And after a handful of sentries and mainly lot based army you set yourself up for pretty gas intensive transitions as you will already have 2 assimilators and after you have your handful of sentries you will only be spending minerals so you will have gas to spare if you continue mining from both of them. On August 13 2010 08:03 st3roids wrote: pls before posting nonsense watch qxc vs machine bio ghost build , then come and tell us how bad it is nvm i posted it so every1 can see http://starcraft2reps.com/index.php?a=details&id=1127 Ghost's do make bio somewhat doable but let's put it in perspective. Snipe deals 45 damage and costs 25 energy with a full energy ghost thats a maximum of 200 damage. Ghosts cost 150/150 which is 25 more gas than a tank. In addition their buildtime is 40sec while a tank's build time is 45 sec. Going Bio ("Marine Marauder") vs zerg is what is seen as unrealistic. They need some kind of support unit and not just medivacs. Instead of thinking of the ghost as a support unit like the tank is when a terran decides to go mainly bio. By building ghosts instead you are sacraficing the splash damage for a more focused heavy damage attack (ie snipe) and to have emp for those annoying infestors. However even though in this paticular bio build the ghosts take on the tanks role of being a support unit. The ghost is very weak against the thing that zerg builds to kill bio balls (ie banelings) you will notice in that replay that the ghosts were getting raped by the splash damage even when the zerg had no detection and it is arguable whether or not QXC needed that many ghosts more marauders and keeping the ghosts around for emp on the infestors imo. Also if you notice in the replay apparently zerg had his sound turned off so he didnt notice the nukes. Also another point for this to put snipe in a different perspective. Storm does damage in an AOE of 80. 2 Snipes does 90 damage and costs 25 less energy but only does one target. If we are assuming that snipe is OP in this replay then wouldn't storm be OP by the same reasoning yes you can dodge storm if your good but not in massive battles like that if it is launched in the middle of the force Another side note I did not choose to do this next thing because of a suggestion in this thread but I am doing it anyway (hopefully other terran/zerg are doing it as well) I am practicing my zerg BO atm so I can feel first hand what exactly makes mech so frustrating. But this tip does not just apply to terran players zerg players take your own advice if bio is doable then when you attempt the other side of the MU go bio everytime. I can't remember where I heard this quote on TL but someone said if one race takes a significantly higher apm to play somewhat decent then there must be an imbalance (or something to that degree) If you take out spam clicking I'm willing to bet that the terran bio ball even when someone manages to get it to work requires more apm then that of the easy zerg counter. So if mech eventually got nerfed what difference would it make according to this quote here the MU would still be IMBA just in the other direction. Not to mention any nasty tvp effects that might have. Just a little tid bit of info btw this may not relate completely to tvz and tvp. But after the siege tank nerf of 10 damage marauders became alot more usable in tvt as they could survive an additional shot (after wepons upgrade the plus one weapons upgrade for tanks allowed one less shot to kill a marauder but after the nerf you need 3 upgrades to reduce the number of hits (Splash ignored)) Needless to say marauder thor builds in tvt are growing in popularity even though the primary composition is shittons of vikings and a few tanks. I played a tvt with a guy where this guy went the traditional build while I went for marauder thor. How did I do it you may ask? I exploited the Immobility of the tanks. (sound familiar zerg players) I sent in 3 medivacs. One to his scv line and 2 in between his force and his base. My thors layed on the direct route between my base and his force. The fact that I had marauders in his base is going to live him with 2 decisions. 1.) Go back and defend back everything so they don't get caught out of position 2.) realize that you can build enough units in time to protect the majority of your base and still go through with your attack. If he chooses option one the my 8 marauders and thors sandwhich him if he goes for option 2 the same thing happens and in the meantime I'm killing scv's and tech structures and depos. Did his air superiority (as thors cant kill vikings fast) prevent me from being able to shit out a medivac or 2 not really they just needed to go on a one way trip. BTW if you drop with overlords to abuse the terran immobility and some vikings come in to clean up your overlords so you can't retreat use a nydus worm to teleport out. If the nydus is really "useless" at dropping a base I still cannot see it being useless as means of retreat. as where ever you dropped will be safe from enemy detection. I will spend 300/200 any day of the weak if it means my 200/200 army avoids total elimination. Edit: On August 13 2010 23:17 Consummate wrote: MythicalMage, its apparent you cannot read between the lines whatsoever. When I say "forced into robo", I mean robo straight after Warp gate. Which you have just contended you "have to do". Yes, it is inconceivable people might go for Dark Templar/High Templar or Stargate tech instead of Robo straight after Warp gates - even at high level, or have you even watched High level play to see that you just owned yourself because that is incredibly wrong? No you are not forced to get a robo. You are forced to get a robo if you perceive your opponent is going to go for cloaked units. You can choose to research hallucination after warpgates and scout with that your scouting may be a little delayed if you choose the templar route as your tech. If you choose phonenix/Vray route as your tech then your opening phonenix ray can scout out your opponents base while you are waiting on the research to finish. 9 times out of 10 simply seeing a Vray the terran player will over react. Back to the quote. Is the robo facility the safest scouting method to choose? Definitely but it is not the only one. | ||
|
oldahe
Austria534 Posts
On August 13 2010 21:31 MythicalMage wrote: Pure zealot, actually. I would add in sentries if the unit tester allowed it, but, effectively, not kiting is equatable to what the sentries can provide. This is with stim, though this doesn't modulate the results. for the sake of argument: why dont you try 10 marauder 5 phoenix ? | ||
|
~Matthias
Canada56 Posts
[QUOTE]On August 15 2010 00:35 Chaosvuistje wrote: I'm actually glad you brought up cliffs, because there's been something that's been gnawing at me for a while; What is it that you Zerg players have against cliffs, exactly? You're by far the most mobile race with by far the most imbalanced air units. Yet every time a map is released or discussed the zerg players say in unison: "This map favors Terran! It has one or more cliffs, therefore tanks will be imba!". Is this just another symptom of refusing to innovate to solve your "mech problem"?[/QUOTE] Ignorance on an unprecedented scale | ||
|
Xaenor
France2 Posts
| ||
|
xnub
Canada610 Posts
How about just tossing them a free queen at the start with 0 eng. Allows for quicker teching not having to wait for the queen to spawn before you start the lair. Then you allways have def vs the reaper/hellion/zealot rushs but still need to micro to defend it. Also then for if you see air coming you can pump one queen before lair and you are safe with 2 queens as your lair comes up for hydras/mutas. Not delaying your lair for 3 years. /shrug Not like the queen can run across at the start and win the game .... maybe not : P lol | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
Total combat units: T=12, P=12, Z=9 Ground to ground: T=5, P=4, Z=4 Ground to air+ground: T=3, P=3, Z=1 (+queen but she's rather immobile) Air to ground: T=1, P=0, Z=1 Air to air: T=1, P=1, Z=1 Air to air+ground: T=1, P=3, Z=1 Spellcasters total: T = 5 (CC, ghost, medivac, raven, BC), P = 6 (nexus, stalker, sentry, phoenix, HT, mothership), Z = 4 (queen, overseer, infestor, corruptor) Dedicated spellcasters: T = 1 (raven), P = 1 (HT), Z= 1 (infestor) | ||
|
mathemagician1986
Germany549 Posts
• why not make it that you can build the ultralisk cavern while still having Lair, but needing Hive to actually build ultralisks? This way Zerg could get out ultras faster, so Terran's timing attack will have to hit faster, i.e. it's a little weaker. I also think that ultras are actually pretty weak before they get +3 armour, so maybe this could be accompanied by a more expensive +2 armour upgrade (like, 200/200 instead of 150/150) • make some of the upgrades overlord speed/overlord drop/burrow cost less gas. When Zerg hits Lair they are starving for gas because they have to spam hydras/mutas/banelings. Making some of these upgrades cheaper would help with scouting/mobility/variety respectively. • I believe Terran could survive a tiny range nerf on thors and vikings, but I don't play T, so dunno how TvP is played. • make overseers cost 50/50 instead of 50/100. this would also help scouting. Basically Zerg is playing blind after his scouting drone dies. • maybe make overlords generally a little faster? It doesn't have to be much, but on maps like blistering sands, terran can catch an OL in the open and kill it before it reaches any safe spots. One could also argue that some maps are just very bad for OL placement, but that's another problem to discuss. I have many other ideas, but I think these are the least crass ones, and might actually have a chance of being implemented. | ||
| ||
