EPTZ v T: Current situation and comparison to BW - Page 37
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dRaW
Canada5744 Posts
| ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On August 17 2010 14:53 TheYango wrote: ZvP and TvP aren't as obviously imbalanced as TvZ. There are probably some issues, but it's not entirely certain where they stand. Opinions seem pretty mixed, compared to the consensus people have on the obvious TvZ imbalance. This is part of the problem, of course, seeing as you don't want to accidentally break matchups when you don't know if there's anything wrong with them. I like a lot of these ideas, but it's worth noting that not all of these are probably necessary, and it would probably be better to fix the early game (e.g. nerf on reapers/bunkers so that it's actually possible to hatch-before-pool) before exploring these changes carefully. The zerg economic model was designed around hatch-before-pool builds in SC1. Not being able to do it in SC2, without a clear way to compensate for it is damaging to zerg, especially in the early and mid game. Yeah early bunker rush and reaper play definitely ruins the fast expand model that zerg was designed around. I think implementing a faster build time for spine crawlers as I stated would allow zerg to power their economy harder early game and then throw up a defense in time when the terran moves out. You still might not be able to fast expand but at least you can drone whore a bit harder because you know you can squeeze in those spine crawlers at the last second right when you see the terran move out. Basically, 50 seconds is way too long for a spine crawler to build, I'd much prefer somewhere between 42 and 35 seconds. | ||
|
bluesoup
Macedonia107 Posts
Yeah early bunker rush and reaper play definitely ruins the fast expand model that zerg was designed around. I think implementing a faster build time for spine crawlers as I stated would allow zerg to power their economy harder early game and then throw up a defense in time when the terran moves out. You still might not be able to fast expand but at least you can drone whore a bit harder because you know you can squeeze in those spine crawlers at the last second right when you see the terran move out. Basically, 50 seconds is way too long for a spine crawler to build, I'd much prefer somewhere between 42 and 35 seconds. As long as you maintain that mentality that zerg has to fast expand like in SC1, terrans and protoss will be collecting zerg tears. This is not SC1. In SC1 you did not have queen to spawn larva and therefore you were more or less forced to build additional hatch (at expo or choke). Now, this is SC2 and alll zergs seem to try revolves around getting expo up both on P and T. And than you die to fast tech. Well good luck with it, but it is not Blizzard mistake (or imbalance) it doesn't work. It is not balanced game if zerg has expo up and 2x workers by 5-6 minute mark. Recently i was rolled by smart zerg (teams even, diamond) who started teching and getting two gas on one base, so i turtled expecting mutas and kept looking for the expo that did not exist. No attack come, he expanded a bit later so i decided to push while expanding my self. Only to find he fast teched to ultras and rolled my biomech army like butter. He was probably better player anyway, but my point is that the stupid insistence on hatch before pool on 14pool/15 hatch is what makes your zerg life miserable in SC2. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On August 18 2010 00:08 bluesoup wrote: As long as you maintain that mentality that zerg has to fast expand like in SC1, terrans and protoss will be collecting zerg tears. This is not SC1. In SC1 you did not have queen to spawn larva and therefore you were more or less forced to build additional hatch (at expo or choke). Now, this is SC2 and alll zergs seem to try revolves around getting expo up both on P and T. And than you die to fast tech. Well good luck with it, but it is not Blizzard mistake (or imbalance) it doesn't work. It is not balanced game if zerg has expo up and 2x workers by 5-6 minute mark. Recently i was rolled by smart zerg (teams even, diamond) who started teching and getting two gas on one base, so i turtled expecting mutas and kept looking for the expo that did not exist. No attack come, he expanded a bit later so i decided to push while expanding my self. Only to find he fast teched to ultras and rolled my biomech army like butter. He was probably better player anyway, but my point is that the stupid insistence on hatch before pool on 14pool/15 hatch is what makes your zerg life miserable in SC2. You are correct simply for the fact that worker saturation is more effective in SC2 than in SC1 because of better worker harvesting AI. What I was trying to say was, even without a fast expand you can still power your economy off of one base by drone whoring. The problem is, you want to delay your spine crawlers for as long as possible because if you overreact and make them too early, you will significantly slow your economy. On the other hand, because of their slow build time, you can't really squeeze them out as you see the terran leaving their base because they just won't build in time. The end result is, you have to settle with playing it safe by building defense at some arbitrary time just to be extra cautious. This prevents you from getting the economy you need to enter mid game because you built your defense way to early (you have no other choice). | ||
|
MasterAsia
United States170 Posts
7, The Terran scout is insanely easy. Just an example. Many zergs may think that if T opens with reapers then it is a success to just prevent them from killing your drones. However I found it wrong. The reaper only cost 50/50 even plus their upgrade its just 100/100. But it stays at your base forever until you have mutas. You have to either make speedlings or roaches in respond to 1 or 2 reapers, and you don't even dare to send them out. The reapers serve two purpose: continuously scout & keep your units at home. So basically the reapers will give the Terran all the information he needs at a very low cost plus a good threat to the Zerg. Back in BW the only method to scout early zerg is the scan which increases the danger of being hit or contained by lurkers in early game if it is used for scouting purpose.. The zerg scout is a pain. If the Terran is doing something early harass or attack, sacraficing an overlord or an overseer would simply just make the defending more difficult even if you get what he is doing. Most of the time you only got to see 1/1/1 build and have no idea what is going on in Terran. 8, The Terran map control / macro is insanely effective. Some may say "just outmarco them" to zerg players. Yes it is true in BW. Zerg outmacros Terran. But in SC2 I found it really difficult to outmacro Terran. I have been outmacroed by Terran multiple times. Let us recall why Zerg can outmacro Terran in BW. That is because Zerg has the map control for most of the game when Terran turtled at his own base. This is the only reason that Zerg can expand without endangering himself. (Same arguement holds for PvT and ZvP.) Why Zerg has the map control then? Two main reasons. One, the Zerg units are more effective when the number is small (point 5 above). Hence sending army in the wrong time-spot is stupid for Terran. (Consider sending 6 marines and 1 Tank out each time for a Terran!) Two, most importantly, the mobility (point 3 above). Terran never gets his army back if he is not dominating the battle field. The army will be surrouded and ambushed. Due to its slow movement speed it never comes back, if it can not win the battle against the Zerg army. In SC2 things are different. If the Zerg does not go mutalings, then Bio mobility is much better than the Zerg ground army. That means most of the time terran can send his army out their control the map safely and when he thinks its no longer safe just retreat to his home. Sentry towers will greatly help this as well. And even the Mech, which is considered the most immobile army in the world, can safely run back from Z's base to his own base when chasing by hydras. On their way home zerglings are taken down by hellions and roaches are taken care of if they dare to move away from hydras. Yes, infestor helps with this, maybe a few units each time. Don't even need to mention that Hellions always controls the Xel'Naga towers and they just mess all around... When Terran has the first hellion or reaper, he gets the map control (also perfect scout for reapers). He can expand at that time very safely, because he knows you wont send anything out untill very late. If you send roaches, then reapers and hellions will run into your poor home and slain everything that comes to their sight. After that they run back to T's base ahead of your attacking roaches - WTF? Yes I am a little bit exaggerate... Also the static defence of Terran is insane. In BW Terran always has to put an army to defend a expansion. But in SC2 you simply just leave it there and everything will be fine. Free banker, invincible PF, increadible turrets,... All those will lead to the fact Terran very easy to expand. Just stand 1 minute (well, hydras are on the way! ETA, 2 minutes.) on a expansion, waiting for the PF to complete and this expansion belongs to Terran forever. I think in high-level plays, Terran will have more and more expansions compared to the Zerg. (I remember a replay where CheckPrime is outmacroed by a Terran lol.) I believe this is the reason why Zerg is heavy on mutalings now. At least mutalings are mobile and you will not be outmacroed by Terran so easily. 9, The Terran is so easy to play. I just saw DIMAGA won the tournament AS TERRAN. According to my experience and words from DIMAGA and Sheth, I think Terran is too easy to play. I was A- Zerg on iccup and I play TvZ a lot. But I can hardly take down any Zerg who is B- or better. It is a huge difficulty when playing as a Terran. You have to worry about everything. Early harass, early push, a black map, lurker threat, the dark swarm, the plague, the counter attack at any time, the defending of any base... You have a lot to do to become a good Terran. For example, you have to overreact if you saw just 2 speedlings when you FE. A miscontrol will lose almost your entire army. Everytime I felt ZvT is hard, I turned to play TvZ and realized how difficult it is. In SC2, at first I thought it should work the same way. Terran is powerful and difficult to play. On the first day of my terran playing (I absolutely never played it except for the campaign and a few random 2v2s), I was shocked by the ease of playing as Terran. My first 4 games were against an 800+ diamond zerg and I killed him 4-0 without letting him sending anything across the middle of the map. I fully understand why DIMAGA can win the tournament as Terran. It is way too easy to play. Compared to BW, too few things to worry about. T is almost always in an aggressive position, even in the very early game. | ||
|
Amprophet
93 Posts
| ||
|
Aborash
65 Posts
On August 18 2010 00:08 bluesoup wrote: As long as you maintain that mentality that zerg has to fast expand like in SC1, terrans and protoss will be collecting zerg tears. This is not SC1. In SC1 you did not have queen to spawn larva and therefore you were more or less forced to build additional hatch (at expo or choke). Now, this is SC2 and alll zergs seem to try revolves around getting expo up both on P and T. And than you die to fast tech. Well good luck with it, but it is not Blizzard mistake (or imbalance) it doesn't work. It is not balanced game if zerg has expo up and 2x workers by 5-6 minute mark. Recently i was rolled by smart zerg (teams even, diamond) who started teching and getting two gas on one base, so i turtled expecting mutas and kept looking for the expo that did not exist. No attack come, he expanded a bit later so i decided to push while expanding my self. Only to find he fast teched to ultras and rolled my biomech army like butter. He was probably better player anyway, but my point is that the stupid insistence on hatch before pool on 14pool/15 hatch is what makes your zerg life miserable in SC2. In BW zerg usually got an expo up and 2x workers by 5-6 minute mark, and people agree it is a balance game. Its balance, cause terran army become better the more units it got, mass critical, 2 lings kill 1 marine, 8 lings kill 4 marines, 32 lings doesnt kill 16 marines, unless they all hit all 16 marines from all sides. So if 16 marines cost the same as 32 lings and still be able to kill them, its balanced when game safety allow zerg to expand to compensate when terran hit mass critical with better economy. OP explained it, read point 5. I dont understand last sentence. Are you trying to prove that the match up its balance cause in a game that you turtle, and didnt proper scout, you loose? Or may be that you shouldnt hatch till you get Ultras? Zerg is a macro, you need to have by far more units that opponent to succed, and how can you archive that without expanding? | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On August 18 2010 00:28 Amprophet wrote: Giving zerg more unit options is probably not how the race is supposed to be played. To get that swarmy, infesty feel that the zerg army is supposed to have, I think making creep tumors more effective would be great. Either reduce the countdown again or do something else to allow it to spread better. Ehh...I really don't understand this marriage to the creep mechanic. If the Z can actually have map control with it, sure, but at the moment the insane amount of T options means that even with that much map space you can move on, you won't really be leaving your base. Then he scans twice and kills all the tumors up front and you start again. | ||
|
MasterAsia
United States170 Posts
On August 18 2010 00:08 bluesoup wrote: As long as you maintain that mentality that zerg has to fast expand like in SC1, terrans and protoss will be collecting zerg tears. This is not SC1. In SC1 you did not have queen to spawn larva and therefore you were more or less forced to build additional hatch (at expo or choke). Now, this is SC2 and alll zergs seem to try revolves around getting expo up both on P and T. And than you die to fast tech. Well good luck with it, but it is not Blizzard mistake (or imbalance) it doesn't work. It is not balanced game if zerg has expo up and 2x workers by 5-6 minute mark. Recently i was rolled by smart zerg (teams even, diamond) who started teching and getting two gas on one base, so i turtled expecting mutas and kept looking for the expo that did not exist. No attack come, he expanded a bit later so i decided to push while expanding my self. Only to find he fast teched to ultras and rolled my biomech army like butter. He was probably better player anyway, but my point is that the stupid insistence on hatch before pool on 14pool/15 hatch is what makes your zerg life miserable in SC2. Whenever I one-base-tech, i got outmacroed...... come on, they just expand with a banker (0 cost) and a few turrets and all my tech becomes a shit. If I decide roaches are my choice, then the PF is waiting there. In that case when I expand, the terran is about to have his 3rd.. WITH EVERY TECH HE NEEDS. | ||
|
iNty.sCream
Germany195 Posts
my 2 cents | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
1) Protoss is even easier to play in every MU. 2) Even in SC:BW, there were Races and MU's considered easier than others - that's just the way it is. 3) Terran is easier to play Macro-wise, but you need much better Battle-Micro with Bio and you need a lot of Multitasking and Micro when harrassing with Hellions, Reapers, Vikings, Banshees etc. So yes; Zerg has harder Macro-abilities and stuff, but try microing a Bio-Army with Ghosts against Muta, Speedlings and Banelings. Way more difficult to handle then the Zergs Army. That of course is not true at all for Mech (Tanks+Thors especially) - I totally give you that. ^^' I also don't think it's easy to gain Mapcontrol as Terran, especially in the Midgame, where Reapers and Hellions are shut down by Mutas and Bio-Balls are shut down by banelings. There are just many ways Zerg can gain Mapcontrol that they don't utilize that often. Okay, against Mech, the game often ends before stuff like Nydus Worms, Burrowed Roaches/Banelings, Doomdrops etc. come into play, but if you play on bigger Maps (like Metalopolis cross-position or non-Blizzard-Maps like Fighting Spirit), stuff like that really helps Zerg gain Mapcontrol and Macro up hardcore. I also don't think the Macro-advantage of Zerg just has to do with Mapcontrol, because Zerg has the ability to pump Drones extremely fast, so to get into a decent Worker-count, you don't necessarily need to contain the Terran in his base, as long as you pump out Units fast enough to defend his push. | ||
|
Amprophet
93 Posts
On August 18 2010 00:36 Ecael wrote: Ehh...I really don't understand this marriage to the creep mechanic. If the Z can actually have map control with it, sure, but at the moment the insane amount of T options means that even with that much map space you can move on, you won't really be leaving your base. Then he scans twice and kills all the tumors up front and you start again. Maybe adding a slow on the creep for enemy bio units would work too. I don't know how well it'd really work for balancing, but from my opinion, creeping and spawn larvae are definitive things the zerg should be doing. And map control is something the zerg should have an easier time of attaining. Larvae give you units while creeping gives you vision and X, where X should help your units with map control. I think this is the only "zerg-like" direction we can be heading in terms of achieving balance. EDIT: yea maybe adding slow for enemy bio units would help fix ZvZ too... | ||
|
foxmeep
Australia2320 Posts
The game is completely based around map control, and the ENTIRE map comes into play at all times, yet you have a race that is heavily advantaged on creep and severely disadvantaged off it. I honestly don't know what the fuck they were thinking. Imagine a game of soccer/football where your players ran faster in your half of the pitch. How fucking stupid would that be. | ||
|
sparknineone
United States52 Posts
I don't think player rank means anything in terms of their knowledge of the game or their willingness to seriously discuss balance issues, esp. regarding their own race. A "bronze newbie" can have a good understanding of many important issues that may need to be dealt with. It's sad that nearly every "pro" interview I've seen so far is just biased banter about how unfair it is for their race. To Saracen's post: This post just seems like a generalized series of vague statements stating that Terran players have an easier time being victors at high levels. Is there any proof to show that the Terran players you listed aren't actually better players? But once he players better and better players, it becomes harder and harder to win. At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." This also bothers me, because the first point is an irrefutable fact that exists for every match-up. As for the second point, do you really think there is a Terran player or a Protoss player who thinks every one of their match-ups are fine? No. Every player thinks their race is the weakest race. I don't really need to mention the fact that both your second point and my last point are absolutely not based on fact and therefore mean almost nothing. It's not like we interviewed every single "top" player on each region, whatever "top player" is supposed to mean. To MasterAsia: I've seen the "Not fun" argument many times on the Battle.net forums and all I have to say is that it is completely unrelated to competitive play. I have two points to mention. One, Idra is definitely playing in a pro scene, while the terran players around his points are all ameteurs. Two, Idra got those win-ratio very early in the release, when Terrans are not so imba. We need to remember that we all started at the same time. It's not like IdrA is playing exclusively with seasoned veterans. Even if he is, do you think his ratio would've been higher had he picked either of the other races? Maybe slightly, but I'm sure there wouldn't have been a significant difference. If it would've been significant, he is the best player in the world by far. My point: If you only look at these statistics, It's the player, not the race. His high win ratio as Zerg means that the game is balanced enough for it to happen to good players like him. Playing Zerg did not limit him enough for his ratio to be severely affected. Terrans are improving very fast, while Zergs improvement is very slow. This could be true but I have no idea where this information is coming from. I'm more interested in finding out how this information can be accurately obtained. Also, if the statement were to be proven true, consider the fact that developments in race-specific strategies are made and spread very quickly. These developments do not happen for all three races at the same time, since they are race-specific. This means that Terran strategies may be developed earlier than Zerg strategies. It may have nothing to do with balance. 1, As Sheth mentioned, Zerg has no ability to defend against sieging or to siege. I agree with this, not with Sheth's post, but with the Siege problem. The new Siege AI is absolutely ridiculous regardless of the fact that Zerg no longer have Dark Swarm. 2, The Terran is very flexible with strategies, but Zerg is not. Although your list of Terran openings is exaggerated, the limitations that Terran openings cause for the other two races is apparent. It does seem like the Protoss and Zerg usually only have the option of reacting instead of acting first. 3, The Terran mobility is too good comparing to the Zerg ground army. I agree. Zerg is slow as shit. Although speedlings are ridiculously fast, it does nothing for you. Although, these problems should be less noticeable after you have your Lair. Zerglings might be good against Marauders Lol, actually I don't think they are. I've seen microed Marauders just roll over speedlings. It does seem like the hard-counters are in Terran's favor. 5, Zerg units are too weak compared to BW when they are in small number. I think any comparison to any other game, be it the first of the same series or not, is just ridiculous and invalid. We're talking about Starcraft 2. This is not some cheap rehash. 6, The new AI helps Terran too much. I agree with all three points made here, especially the last. The first may be a little overdone, but Terran does seem to benefit the most out of this AI behavior. Auto-repair just seems like a completely arbitrary feature that exists for the sole purpose of reducing the number of tasks that Terran players need to worry about. There is no balance for the other races for this either. (3) Tanks do not waste DPS. Yeah this is just insane. Nothing else to be said really. Tanks are pretty much god-mode with this new AI behavior. This is not sarcasm. I think it's important to accept some counter arguments if they seem valid from time to time. Just rejecting everything that you don't like does not accomplish anything. I'm not saying that it's what you did. I've looked at some statistics myself, and I noticed that there are only four Zerg players within the top 25 when world statistics are used on (http://sc2ranks.com/). Yeah there may be a problem here, but I wouldn't be so quick to suggest massive nerfs for Terran as that will screw up TvP, a fact that people seem to be ignoring completely. | ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
On August 18 2010 01:17 sparknineone wrote: I've looked at some statistics myself, and I noticed that there are only four Zerg players within the top 25 when world statistics are used on (http://sc2ranks.com/). Yeah there may be a problem here, but I wouldn't be so quick to suggest massive nerfs for Terran as that will screw up TvP, a fact that people seem to be ignoring completely. well number one is random... so he still has to play Zerg. number 4 is SLush who is Zerg If you look at top 10 5/10 are toss. I agree with your thoughts though. If you nerf terran that will damage TvP Buff up zerg instead. however the ZvP matchup needs to then be considered... right now muta/ling is really strong against toss. I think the game just needs to be played out a bit more than small adjustments made. | ||
|
fantomex
United States313 Posts
Most of the time you only got to see 1/1/1 build and have no idea what is going on in Terran. This is deserving of a more significant mention. The ability to swap attachments makes scouting Terran extremely difficult. | ||
|
sparknineone
United States52 Posts
I think the game just needs to be played out a bit more than small adjustments made. Absolutely, and hopefully that is what will happen. Starcraft 1 took several years to be balanced, as many people have mentioned before. | ||
|
Kpyolysis32
553 Posts
On August 15 2010 09:34 MasterAsia wrote: 4, Zerg army is hard-countered, and Terran army is slightly-countered. For each unit or unit combination of Zerg, Terran can find a very effective unit or unit combo to counter it hard. Ex. Muta - Thors/Ghosts, Broodlords - Vikings, Roaches - Marauders/Tanks, Hydra - Bio/Tanks/Thors, lings - Helions... unit combo: Muta&lings - bio/Thors&Helions, Roaches&Hydras - Marader&Tanks/Mech, Zerg everything together - Mech... The only unit that is not hard-countered is the ultralisks, but it comes too late, and you can't use it along. Ultra&lings is slightly countered by mech. On the other side, if you see terran goes hard marauders/mech, you don't have anything really counter them. Zerglings might be good against Marauders, Banelings good against marine, but the combo is only slightly good (or even) against Marau & Marines with good control due to the fact that Marauders consume all the damage and marines are really good DPS. That raises the problem, that even if the Zerg knows exactly what the terran is going to do, it can not find a good counter to the Terran army. Recall in BW, the mech consists of two major units: Goliaths and tanks. If the T goes heavy on Goliath, the zerg will make more hydras. If the T goes heavy tanks, the zerg can make all mutas. Switch between those two units is very effective in Z v mech games. The reason is Hydras totally own goliaths and Mutalisks kill tanks free. But in SC2, I can't see any switch that is so effective. Changing from Muta to Roaches or Hydras does not help so much with killing Thors... This one strikes home with me lots, especially the entire thing about Thors. I feel as though they're far too strong in general, and have kind of a lot to say about them. Comparing them to Goliaths in Brood War, they basically end up being better in every regard (except for supply effectiveness in some situations), but by the time that becomes important, it doesn't matter anyways. First of all, Thors are soooo much better versus ground than Goliaths. This doesn't even really need explanation; a Goliath got RAPED by even cost in any ground unit (and it's worth noting that that means it faired especially poor; Zerg units in BW ZvT were expected not to be that cost effective because Zerg would have a greater economy). Additionally, while Goliaths were still good against Mutas, they didn't do splash like the Thor does, which means that they didn't have that same critical-mass type of effect. I think that this critical-mass type effect from their splash is actually a GIGANTIC problem. If you were making any amount of Mutas in BW, and they were making just the count of Goliaths required to stop that, you could both continue to produce at that rate, and the Goliaths would continue to just be enough to stop them. There was never this effect of them being able to just kill a million times their cost in Mutas. This meant that continued Muta production was actually really good even if they were making the necessary Goliaths, because that would mean that he would have to slow Tank production (and you would have to slow Hydra production). This is beneficial to the Zerg, because (as you said in the OP) smaller numbers of Zerg units- Hydras- fare better against smaller numbers of Terran units- Tanks. Furthermore, the critical mass effect of Thors means that their lack of general supply effectiveness compared to the Goliath is a complete non-issue, because by the time the Terran is near enough to max for that to be relevant, his Thors will easily have hit a critical mass versus Mutas, and he won't really require very many. And then there's repair, which you did cover in your OP, but I just want to state how I feel about it: I feel as though it is too strong, and that it takes an unreasonably large amount of work from the Zerg for how nonessential to the game it is (although this is about top-level balance, and players who are stronger than me mechanically may disagree with me; if so, please do correct me on this). If nothing else, I think the unit AI regarding Repair needs to be changed, because it requires far more micro from the Zerg than it does from the Terran. Terran can simply stick a few SCVs in a his army and press auto-repair, then never worry about them again, while Zerg is required to focus down the SCVs, which the UI set to a very low priority, else he'll waste a lot of attack damage and get his Zergling surrounds completely ruined. However, I am actually convinced that UI changes would not be enough here, and repair is simply too strong in SC2. SCVs do repair faster now, at a speed of ~20.83 HP/s instead of 17.6 HP/s, which is around an 18% increase in repair speed. This accounts for some of repair's increased effectiveness. I believe there are other factors as well, however. The first of these is that the Zerg ball seems to tend to have lower damage vs Terran output in SC2 than it did in BW, as Hydras are generally avoided due to the fact that Tanks crush them so horribly (and the Roach, who favors HP over damage, is added in its stead), and the fact that Zerglings have had their DPS majorly reduced. This makes it so that out-repairing the Zerg's damage is much easier, and thus, repair is stronger. The second is, yet again, the Thor. One of the problems with repair in SC1 was that most Terran mechanical units did not really have that high of health, so the SCVs would more frequently have to move from unit to unit as they died and spend time in transit instead of repairing. The Thor, however, is a singular unit with relatively high health, instead of multiple lower-health units, which allows SCVs to repair it more efficiently, and this also increases repair's strength. These 3 small improvements from SC1, combined with the fact that it requires a lot more effort from Zerg than from Terran, make repair a potent and possibly imbalanced force. So, there's what I have to contribute to this. I feel pretty confident about what I've said about Thors, and hope that I've helped make it apparent to at least some of you why they ought to be changed. I'm less certain that Repair needs to be fixed, but it is undoubtedly stronger than it was in BW, and is a contributor to this match-up's problems. | ||
|
iNty.sCream
Germany195 Posts
no my friend, this sentence you wrote is completely bullshit. compare the possibilities of harassing of T and Z, while T is easily abled to expand while the zerg cant do shit against. oh i forgot zerg can rush to t2 and then loose with his 8 rushed mutas against 1 thor and 3 turrets in the terran main, after realising that the terran has expanded edit : spelling | ||
|
hetpotatis
Sweden24 Posts
First of all, great OP, it covers lot of ground on why the imbalance is so present. Now, basically what the imbalance is all about is that T has way more options early game then Z because a) their tech is not hard to get, b) their defense is solid while going for this and c) they cannot be scouted efficiently while doing it. It leaves Z at a guessing game wondering what is coming. If you get your natural exp which is standard, you open yourself up for harassment a whole lot more, but more so than any other race because your defense is so bad compared to the others. This is no different than in BW. But since T has so many openings, you don't really know how to prepare because running back and forth between main and exp is not easy if you haven't connected your bases (which you most likely haven't that early in the game) and it just makes it easy for T that has very mobile openings (yes, you heard it right: T is more mobile than Z this early). If you manage to somehow survive the early game, the only thing you can do is try to tech for ultras or BL's as fast as you can while macroing your heart out, worrying about that giant mech push that's coming sooner or later. If you don't macro and tech, you won't be able to throw these giant 200/200 armies at the T in late game to break him and if you don't make defense while doing this, you open yourself up for a giant push that could be coming anytime, and it's going to kill you fast because of point 4 and 5 in the OP. You're on the defensive and have no idea what's coming, because of your inability to scan the T. And I haven't even mentioned how bad burrowed roaches, mutas, nydus' and OL drops are to break in to T's base... This style of play is not fair. And definately not fun. Not by a longshot. So I got to thinking... what are some changes that could be made between TvZ to actually balance it out, without screwing PvZ (which I find balanced and very fun) and PvT (which I unfortunately have no experience of). Italic text are descriptions of why I propose these changes. Proposed Zerg changes:
I had a lot of other changes in mind, most notably mutalisk range, but they are exactly the same as in BW so it wouldn't make sense, but I think these together with other changes will be enough. Proposed Terran changes:
Other changes I had in mind were lesser range on Vikings and Thor's air attack but Thor's need to be a valid option for ground-to-air and Vikings still have shorter range and weaker damage than Corruptor's (I think, can't remember on the top of my head). I also suggested lesser tank damage, but Siege Tanks need to be a valid option for T to defend against Ultralisks. And of course, lastly: Proposed AI fixes:
Why isn't this already implemented!? Is a PF able to take down an entire army single-handed "working as intended"? If I can't get it down, I should at least be able to take down all the SCV's to hurt his economy for crying out loud. That's all I have. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the discussion on this issue. Please comment if you think these changes are valid or not. | ||
| ||
