EPTBlizzcon, Multipayer Panel-Blizzard's view of PvT - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
VonLego
United States519 Posts
| ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
| ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On October 25 2010 20:40 VonLego wrote: A question is in relation to zerg. They said that they don't want zerg to have a scary T2 push, but are required to tech to T3 for their scary armies (to be different from protoss/terran). Is this not the same as saying zerg are weak mid game, and then overpowered late game? How does this differ from the protoss vs terran situation? it differs because of one very essential unit: the mutalisk zerg has a possibility to stall extremely well, while the phoenix is nowhere near as effective when it comes down to harassment; currently (= post patch!) I'd say ZvT is about even....if the T is more skilled he will capitalize more early on, if the Z is more skilled, then he will do more harassment-damage; while in PvT, all the P can do until colossi (meaning: not only one but at least 2-3) is sit behind and defend drops; he has no real way to prevent T from getting mapcontrol and macroing up; the FE-sytle is so strong because it actually "embraces" this weakness...making defending and not attacking the way to go; nevertheless a balanced matchup should never leave one race without any options with regards to agression until a certain mark if ppl start talking about PvT broodwar: yes, here terran was "doomed" to turtle...nevertheless once terran had vultures with mines they could do PAINFUL harassment; in sc2 protoss has nothing to harass terran while teching to their "good stuff"; it's funny that in PvT terran actually has all the harassment-possibilities (hellions, banshees and vikings [yes you can land those and kill pylons and stuff]) although they don't need them since their MM-army is more mobile and generally better early on anyways; really seems like something blizz didn't plan, while I think ZvT and PvZ works how they intended it to | ||
|
Vasili
Australia125 Posts
On October 25 2010 12:31 wishbones wrote: unhh i thinkt hey got the part wrong where terran has upper hand in first twelve minutes sorry to say, but toss can fe super safely and terran cannot without getting worried. so check again blizzard! If a Protoss FE the Terran can bust through it with a timing attack and it becomes pretty difficult to defend :/ | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On October 25 2010 20:40 VonLego wrote: A question is in relation to zerg. They said that they don't want zerg to have a scary T2 push, but are required to tech to T3 for their scary armies (to be different from protoss/terran). Is this not the same as saying zerg are weak mid game, and then overpowered late game? How does this differ from the protoss vs terran situation? no it just says what their design /style intentions are. | ||
|
DamageInq
United States283 Posts
| ||
|
kyarisan
United States347 Posts
On October 25 2010 20:40 VonLego wrote: A question is in relation to zerg. They said that they don't want zerg to have a scary T2 push, but are required to tech to T3 for their scary armies (to be different from protoss/terran). Is this not the same as saying zerg are weak mid game, and then overpowered late game? How does this differ from the protoss vs terran situation? But the protoss don't have good harrass options to keep the terran in his base and protoss are not superior macroers to the terran by design, in fact if anything it's the opposite with chonoboosts but I will simply ignore those so as to not distract you from the fallacy in your comparison. | ||
|
spacemonkeyy
Australia477 Posts
They think psi storm OP late game- seriously it takes that long to get out HT's and get them functioning well with a reasonable amount of micro needed. If terran want to keep spamming tier 1 MMM against templar collosus why shouldnt they get their arses handed to them. I really don't get the recent patch history in regards to these changes. Protoss early game has been nerfed with slower zealots and warp gates, Terran mid to late game has been nerfed with changes to tanks and battle cruisers. I mean I know why the changes were done but in nerfing the terran tier 2/3 they almost force heavy MMM play and by nerfing gateway units they almost force heavy toss tier 2/3 play, obviously these changes were more centered around vZ and mirror match-ups. Also lol at guy at the end begging for Muta buff- yeah because if there is one unit that definitely could do with being a little stronger is Mutas. | ||
|
Victim
United States188 Posts
On October 25 2010 20:40 VonLego wrote: A question is in relation to zerg. They said that they don't want zerg to have a scary T2 push, but are required to tech to T3 for their scary armies (to be different from protoss/terran). Is this not the same as saying zerg are weak mid game, and then overpowered late game? How does this differ from the protoss vs terran situation? That seems more a matter of function than raw power. The shorter range of most zerg units makes it harder for them to break an entrenched position - especially against high ground siege tanks or something like that. On the other, those same units can hold up pretty well in open battle (especially on creep). They just don't deal a killing blow. | ||
TrueRedemption
United States313 Posts
Maybe these ideas suck, i'm sure stimming to defend against muta / void ray would need a substitute, that or terran will start to incorporate turrets into every build order, but aren't they supposed to be the turtling race? Considering how safe a planatary fortress expansion with turrets is, I can't see slowing down Bio as the worst thing in the world, though similar to the scv health change its one less link between past and present. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
The problem is almost certainly the DPS of marines, but they're such a core unit that messing with them will be extremely difficult. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
|
Armsved
Denmark642 Posts
 Protoss is threadening with all kind of openings where as terran pretty much only has different types of bio openings and some banchee openings. And 3 gate robo is pretty damn strong vs any bio opening. 1 gate robo auto wins vs any banchee/drop opening.I dont see how terran is more OP in the early game, zealot sentry army is so,so,so strong, the zealots tanks incredible amounts of damage. And yes it can be kited, but on certain maps like LT with small chokes, aggresive play is éasily punished with FFs. While I do think terran has a slight advantage early on its not that huge. Midgame is kinda balanced with protoss having a slightly stronger army but terran able to do drops. As soon as protoss has 6x gas and HT tech it gets incredible hard for terran since protoss are able to warp in huge amounts of HTs ready to storm. But I do find this MU pretty balanced. Terran just has to enter the lategame with an advantage or play so aggresive that the protoss just dies if he spend money on twillight council/charge/HT tech. | ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2012 Posts
On October 25 2010 21:52 Armsved wrote: As 1900 terran I honestly do not agree Protoss is threadening with all kind of openings where as terran pretty much only has different types of bio openings and some banchee openings. And 3 gate robo is pretty damn strong vs any bio opening. 1 gate robo auto wins vs any banchee/drop opening.I dont see how terran is more OP in the early game, zealot sentry army is so,so,so strong, the zealots tanks incredible amounts of damage. And yes it can be kited, but on certain maps like LT with small chokes, aggresive play is éasily punished with FFs. While I do think terran has a slight advantage early on its not that huge. Midgame is kinda balanced with protoss having a slightly stronger army but terran able to do drops. As soon as protoss has 6x gas and HT tech it gets incredible hard for terran since protoss are able to warp in huge amounts of HTs ready to storm. But I do find this MU pretty balanced. Terran just has to enter the lategame with an advantage or play so aggresive that the protoss just dies if he spend money on twillight council/charge/HT tech. Well at the start till Colo or Storm, Stimmed bio facerolls gateway units, even with immortal support Its not coincidence that everyone saying, protoss has to survive till Storm And as you said, it just like with zerg in BW, if protoss gets 3rd, the amount of heavy gas units jumping by far | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On October 25 2010 21:52 Armsved wrote: As 1900 terran I honestly do not agree Protoss is threadening with all kind of openings where as terran pretty much only has different types of bio openings and some banchee openings.protoss has only robotics-openings and the FE or are you referring to the different kinds of gettin robotics? like the oldschool 1 gate with zealot/stalker into robotics, the more army based 2 gate with zealot/stalker/sentry/stalker into robotics, or the more immortal-based 1 gate stalker into faster robotics? 1 gate robo auto wins vs any banchee/drop opening. what the...kidding, right? if anything then 2 gate robo is stronger because you get more stuff while adding a stargate; 1 gate robo is strongest vs pure rax play because it enables you to get colossi fastest On October 25 2010 21:05 spacemonkeyy wrote: Whilst I agree on a lot that was said (I watched the actual video) there are several points that worry me. They think psi storm OP late game- seriously it takes that long to get out HT's and get them functioning well with a reasonable amount of micro needed. If terran want to keep spamming tier 1 MMM against templar collosus why shouldnt they get their arses handed to them. that's not the point just imagine terran and protoss having BOTH their complete tech-tree unlocked, all upgrades, everything; both having equal bases; THEN terran has it really hard to beat colossi+templar with gateway support or even carriers mixed in; I have a really high win-percentage when terran let's me "GET" to this point; yes, it's hard to not lose before that...or not be at the disadvantage when having templars (like be behind 1 base or just be behind supply-wise)...but that's not the point; the point is, that a balanced game should NOT have one 200/200 army steamroll over any 200/200 composition your opponent can come up with | ||
|
Agh
United States1016 Posts
On October 25 2010 13:18 DarkMoon wrote: While the OP is a nice write up I don't think it does justice to what the blizzcon panel went over completely. In regards to PvT the panel said that while the Terran early game was very powerful, after 12 minutes (don't really know how they got that time, could be arbitrary for their own example) the Protoss became very strong and the Terran would usually lose. (See Kiwikaki vs Select at MLG) But if the Terran attacked early with bio usually the Terran would win. (See Select vs Huk, Select vs Nony, etc at MLG) Referring to Select vs Kiwi @ DC (game2 on metal if memory serves) that is a very very bad example. Select lost that game because he made worthless Planatary Fortresses at his 3rd/4th (Kiwi couldn't leave his base if he wanted to, it made 0 sense to get them). Was sitting next to and talking to HuK during that game and its pretty clear that Select would of been able to win had he built Orbitals there. I'll actually make a note to watch the replay of that game since it was fairly entertaining, but it was ridiculous how Select was able to stay not only in the game, but also at a dictating position. Just because a strategy is extremely difficult or impossible for 99% of T players to execute doesn't automatically make it okay if there is no clear appropriate answer to it. A major thing to note is that every single Toss he played against knew exactly what he was doing/going to do, and everyone was even watching the games. Given the nature of sc2 and the fact that no generic/'safe' build exists due to the heavy influence of 'counter'-type play it just seems out of place. I'm not taking anything away from select as he's clearly an amazing player (I actually haven't taken a game from him in a handful of weeks), but there is definitely something that needs to be adjusted that allows for more flexible play on both ends. Just my opinion but I think it's pretty obvious the problem lies with mainly Marauder Medivac drops. Nothing near remotely even food/cost can stop it once it is inside of your base. (note I'm cearly omitting extreme late game options). You have to have significantly more resources worth of units or upgrades to allow you to clean up the drop, and at multiple locations accompanied by a large main force, you are simply going to either be out of position resulting in you losing far more worth of units and/or tech and unit producing structures. I don't have any direct suggestions atm of what should be done because simply put I don't have time to analyze every minuscule ramification each change could inflict, but personally I believe everything roots itself with the MULE and how late game the Economic gain from 3 orbital commands is unable to be outmatched in terms of economy by anything that Protoss can do. Actual late game unit disparity has its ups and downs for each side. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
The only matchup where I feel I can macro and expand heavily is TvT. | ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
| ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 25 2010 22:12 Agh wrote: Just because a strategy is extremely difficult or impossible for 99% of T players to execute doesn't automatically make it okay if there is no clear appropriate answer to it. A major thing to note is that every single Toss he played against knew exactly what he was doing/going to do, and everyone was even watching the games. Given the nature of sc2 and the fact that no generic/'safe' build exists due to the heavy influence of 'counter'-type play it just seems out of place. Are you saying Select's style has no counter, though? Genius demolished him in 2 games, abusing his late vikings with nice colossus timing attacks, and of course his Korean forcefields ^_^. Given Select's style is bloody hard to do I think it's fair to require sexy FFs and nice timing to beat it. Just my opinion but I think it's pretty obvious the problem lies with mainly Marauder Medivac drops. Nothing near remotely even food/cost can stop it once it is inside of your base. (note I'm cearly omitting extreme late game options). You have to have significantly more resources worth of units or upgrades to allow you to clean up the drop, and at multiple locations accompanied by a large main force, you are simply going to either be out of position resulting in you losing far more worth of units and/or tech and unit producing structures. How often do the top Protoss players actually lose for that reason though? It seems like most of the losses are due to timing attacks while the Protoss tries to transition to either colossus or templar (and of course we have to transition to them). It feels like the big problem is that window where T has a stimball which basic gateway alone simply cannot handle, but before the big guns are out. Maybe it's a regional thing, NA/EU seems to either have better dropping Terrans or the Protoss are worse at defending them. I don't have any direct suggestions atm of what should be done because simply put I don't have time to analyze every minuscule ramification each change could inflict, but personally I believe everything roots itself with the MULE and how late game the Economic gain from 3 orbital commands is unable to be outmatched in terms of economy by anything that Protoss can do. Actual late game unit disparity has its ups and downs for each side. ?? You're saying Terran has a lategame advantage? | ||
|
out4blood
United States313 Posts
On October 25 2010 13:16 VoodooDog wrote: rine stimm should bring only 50% more firerate, not 100%. Marauder stim should be deleted. Than it will be balanced. User was warned for this post Marine stim is only a 50% increase in fire rate. I am not sure where you get that it is 100%. | ||
| ||
