EPTI would really love a nerf to marine DPS, but compensate with greater survivability. Even with combat shield they get raped soooo hard by units designed to counter them -- of course everything should be countered, but it just goes way out of hand.
Blizzcon, Multipayer Panel-Blizzard's view of PvT - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
I would really love a nerf to marine DPS, but compensate with greater survivability. Even with combat shield they get raped soooo hard by units designed to counter them -- of course everything should be countered, but it just goes way out of hand. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 25 2010 22:56 out4blood wrote: Marine stim is only a 50% increase in fire rate. I am not sure where you get that it is 100%. It's 33%. 50% faster movement. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On October 25 2010 22:44 Yaotzin wrote: 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. pretty much this - also consider that protoss "automatically" gets behind in core units because protoss HAS to tech; often I hear even good ppl downtalking protoss-players for getting "outplayed" when terran overruns them with MM while it's obvious that protoss can't have that much "stuff" when you lay down a robotics + bay + range upgrade (!) that all has to pay off; if MM were weaker against gateway-units + immortals (!) then protoss could get colossi considerably later and would be on a more even footing, which would justify a nerf to the "big guns" like storm ?? You're saying Terran has a lategame advantage? I think he is saying that terran has a huge economical advantage in late midgame which leads to protoss entering lategame WAY behind when they don't do damage with their first 2-4 colossi; which is what I'm experiencing too; notice that this has basicly nothing to do with storm being OP or UP but the supply both players can achieve to get when being equally skilled; meaning, most times when you finally get to templars you will be already significantly behind; which is basicly the reason why many protoss players try to do the big damage before transitioning or even get DTs to harass and force scans; I've been saying this since the very release of the game that mules (without cooldown) are a huge problem that is counter-intuitive to basic rts-mechanisms since it allows for gigantic boosts and ludicrous comebacks; just a recent replay (early game shenanigans were funny but not game-deciding): http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/replays/38830 cloud was down to 11 scvs at one point....which equals death in a sane rts-world; nevertheless he managed to come back thanks to massive mule-calldown and only lost because his opponent just continued to outplay him | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
While it takes a damn long time to get Blink/Charge & Fully upgraded HT. It's obvious that P should be able to survive against the early game Terran upgrades - but the problem is if P get their own upgrades they demolish the Terran armies. I honestly hope they dont nerf the Protoss endgame options (storm) but try to find a way to give the Terran new endgame options. A Terran version of Adrenal Glands (buff to early game unit, but only available very very late) comes to my mind. Maybe on a non MMM unit. Edit: removed my example. I think the idea is what counts - dont want to discuss specifics  | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 25 2010 23:03 sleepingdog wrote: I think he is saying that terran has a huge economical advantage in late midgame which leads to protoss entering lategame WAY behind; which is what I'm experiencing too; notice that this has basicly nothing to do with storm being OP or UP but the supply both players can achieve to get when being equally skilled; Any examples of equal players where the Terran pulls ahead in supply? It seems to be remarkably even to me. I've been saying this since the very release of the game that mules (without cooldown) are a huge problem that is counter-intuitive to basic rts-mechanisms since it allows for gigantic boosts and ludicrous comebacks; just a recent replay (early game shenanigans were funny but not game-deciding): http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/replays/38830 cloud was down to 11 scvs at one point....which equals death in a sane rts-world; nevertheless he managed to come back thanks to massive mule-calldown and only lost because his opponent just continued to outplay him Not sure how this is relevant. MULEs aren't an issue in the early game (where Terran is a bit too strong), because they're just keeping T in the races with P's chronod probes. Perhaps the whole 10 mules onto the gold is an issue, but that's lategame where T needs all the help they can get really. | ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
| ||
|
Slakter
Sweden1947 Posts
| ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
It will destroy Tier 1 units (early game units), equalizes to Tier 2 or Tier 1 supported by limited Tier 3 (mid game) and dies to Tier 2/3 (late game). The main issue I feel is that it is hard to transition into anything else without creating a huge window for the opponent to act on. Going Mech is problematic due to Chargelots (which really rape tanks) and Immortals being a far easier transition for P than Mech is for T. T will have to research Siege Tech and get the Tanks in good number before they shine and Thors are so expensive and require an armory. P will most likely already have the Robo and Immortals need no upgrade or tech structure. Going Air leaves the ground army very vulnerable. Banshees, as good as they are, die to Gateway units with one or two Observers mixed in. Vikings have to land to do damage to anything other than air units or Colossi, again leaving the ground army vulnerable. This generally leaves T with staying with MMM (leaving no window) and adding Vikings and Ghosts. MMM however dies a lot faster to Storm and Extended Thermal Lance than HT/Colossi do to Ghosts/Vikings. As mentioned: Early game: T > P because MMM > Gateway Mid game: T == P because MMM == Gateway + Colossi OR Storm Late game: T < P because MMM < Gateway + Colossi AND Storm It isn't so much an imbalance in MMM itself, but the fact that T can't effectively transition into anything else. Hellions? One FF blocks any harass and MMM kites Zealots better, leaving only blue flame drops. Tanks? Chargelots with 150hp taking only 35dmg will eat that alive. Thors? Similar problem, but Immortals hurt a lot here. Vikings? Great against Void Rays and Colossi, that's it. Landing them usually means dead Vikings. Banshees? You can harass and kill a few probes and they help with defense but Stalkers and Observers deal with this just fine. If you really commit to them, P brings Phoenixes. Ravens? PDD is awesome no doubt, but what else can you really use them for that is worth 200 gas? BCs? Good luck staying alive long enough to get them. You see Protoss say often, 'do something else than MMM', but there isn't really much else to go for that doesn't leave a big window in the early or midgame. 4 gate and 3 gate/robo is so strong early game that not going MMM is very risky for T. I'd love to see mass Siege Tank/Hellion or Viking/Banshee play, but such builds leave T so vulnerable in the early game that MMM is the more reliable option. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 25 2010 23:18 Perscienter wrote: Medivacs are not very fragile. Stalkers cause 14 damage against 150 hp medivacs, while dragoons caused 20 damage against 150 hp dropships. That's a 30% decrease. I feel like Terran's don't get punished enough for playing a drop oriented game. Oh look it's another worthless direct comparison with BW. They're different games, get over it. Protoss has different ways of dealing with drops, such as warpins and feedback. That's what happens when you exchange proven units like scourges and corsairs with 'cool' units. Phoenix are better than corsairs in every way, wtf. | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On October 25 2010 23:16 Yaotzin wrote: Any examples of equal players where the Terran pulls ahead in supply? It seems to be remarkably even to me. I edited "when protoss doesn't attack" in, which is basicly the most important point, sorry for omitting it what this means is, protoss can't attack early on (before colossi/storm) but can NEITHER just macro up from three bases because 3 orbital commands will just provide for a rofl-economy; this is why you see many protoss players overextending themselves with few colossi because they KNOW they have to do damage or get behind; protoss doesn't attack with colossi because they "want" to but because they "have" to.....to force terran into a PF instead of a 3rd orbital; it's basicly the point where both players stop producing workers and where chrono-boost gets useless considering the economy my guess is, blizz "thought" that terran would turn out as the turtle-race in PvT where terran would have to "bust out"....and THEN could capitalize with their mules and catch up to the higher probe-count of protoss while having good income due to the mule-calldown; but since terran can actually take the map, this mechanism seems to be "misconceptioned" - it really is a concept to keep a race in the game that is intended to NOT have mapcontrol; which isn't the case in standard PvT right now | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 25 2010 23:27 sleepingdog wrote: I edited "when protoss doesn't attack" in, which is basicly the most important point, sorry for omitting it Yeah I was assuming that. 2 people just macroing up yeah? Always seems really even to me..any examples? what this means is, protoss can't attack early on (before colossi/storm) but can NEITHER just macro up from three bases because 3 orbital commands will just provide for a rofl-economy; this is why you see many protoss players overextending themselves with few colossi because they KNOW they have to do damage or get behind; protoss doesn't attack with colossi because they "want" to but because they "have" to.....to force terran into a PF instead of a 3rd orbital; it's basicly the point where both players stop producing workers and where chrono-boost gets useless considering the economy This is mid-late game, where Terran is starting to seriously struggle. 3rd orbital doesn't do shit for them. It's 4.5 more workers, that's nothing man. | ||
|
Perscienter
957 Posts
On October 25 2010 23:26 Yaotzin wrote: Oh look it's another worthless direct comparison with BW. They're different games, get over it. Protoss has different ways of dealing with drops, such as warpins and feedback. Phoenix are better than corsairs in every way, wtf. Especially the absence of splash damage and the low dps against non-armored units like the medivac. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 25 2010 23:45 Perscienter wrote: Especially the absence of splash damage and the low dps against non-armored units like the medivac. Splash would be useless in SC2. Having them do +armored damage would make them a worse unit. They are a better, more viable unit that the corsair. They are viable in all matchups. They are anti-air that can actually harass/attack ground. The corsair is pretty much never used except against Zerg. How you can conclude that the corsair is better is beyond me. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
Maybe the maps have to change but I think on a big macro map, SC2 Terran can out-expand SC2 Protoss, build all orbitals because they actually don't want to ever fight at their bases, and in the late game have 20-30 less workers (for 20-30 supply bigger army) while keeping up in econ with mules. I think a difficult tech switch to battlecruisers (vikings left over from fighting colossi to support against void rays and marauders that don't even need medivac support to kill stalkers) would be a good point for late game tvp to hinge upon. It's what protoss had to do in SC1 with carriers. | ||
|
Trentelshark
Canada385 Posts
I'm working out timings on an opening/mid-game versus a Protoss that goes 3 or 4 gate w/ Colossi that involves Thor w/ 250mm Strike Cannons since in theory they should nullify any worry of Colossi. I came to this conclusion by looking at stats in general: Colossi cost versus Thor Cost: Equal Build Times: Colossi takes 10 seconds longer (60 seconds versus 50 seconds) Strike Cannon: Cooldown is 50 seconds, stuns the target and deals 500 damage over 6 seconds. One Colossus isn't going to hold up to that since shield + health is about 350 (not including upgrades). Convenient that Colossi build time is 50 seconds, the cooldown is 50 seconds on strike cannon and it does way more damage than even a fully upgraded Colossus can absorb if I'm calculating it correctly. If it works as advertised (I haven't had a chance to test it online yet), engage, hit 1 Colossi per 1 Thor and not only are they stunned the DOT will nuke them without any further action being required allowing the Terran's army to focus on the Stalker/Zealot. When Strike Cannon was energy based it was useless because the HT could nullify its ability with one cast of Feedback. With how the timings line up I can see this being very effective when Vikings aren't an option. I'll avoid getting into the Psi Storm discussion because everyone is biased about it versus Ghosts EMP and Feedback etc. I have my own thoughts on what changes are needed (perhaps to both HT and Ghosts) but I'll keep it to myself. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On October 26 2010 00:10 Liquid`Tyler wrote: I don't see how the late game SC2 Protoss army is imbalanced PvT since I spent years playing PvT in SC1 where a Terran army of equal supply almost always beat me and a 200/200 2-2 Terran army was nearly unstoppable and many maps made it easy for Terran to get 3 bases and turtle until they had a huge army. Protoss could have 5 bases vs 3 bases and hit 200 supply 3 minutes before Terran and have nowhere to attack and 5k minerals saved up and 25 gateways but the Terran army moves out carefully and kills wave after wave of Protoss units and wins the game. That wasn't imbalanced... that's just how the matchup was. So perhaps the tables are turned now. But if it's a fact that a late game protoss army generally owns a late game terran army of equal supply, that does not have anything to do with balance. That's the kind of thing that makes a matchup unique. It creates an interesting dynamic. As long as the race with the weaker late game army has a more explosive economy, which I think SC2 Terran has, it should be balanced. Maybe the maps have to change but I think on a big macro map, SC2 Terran can out-expand SC2 Protoss, build all orbitals because they actually don't want to ever fight at their bases, and in the late game have 20-30 less workers (for 20-30 supply bigger army) while keeping up in econ with mules. I think a difficult tech switch to battlecruisers (vikings left over from fighting colossi to support against void rays and marauders that don't even need medivac support to kill stalkers) would be a good point for late game tvp to hinge upon. It's what protoss had to do in SC1 with carriers. I think the main issue is the AoE firepower that End tier Protoss units have to offer that allows them to overpower the Terran Biomasses, Siege tanks and vikings do offer some sort of counter action against them however I think blizzard's major concern is Templar tech's ability to warp in anywhere and storm right away. in 200/200 battles macro start to matter less as there is not much more you can produce. Since Biomass is a Terran's prime method of confronting any type enemy threat. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On October 26 2010 00:10 Liquid`Tyler wrote: I don't see how the late game SC2 Protoss army is imbalanced PvT since I spent years playing PvT in SC1 where a Terran army of equal supply almost always beat me and a 200/200 2-2 Terran army was nearly unstoppable and many maps made it easy for Terran to get 3 bases and turtle until they had a huge army. Protoss could have 5 bases vs 3 bases and hit 200 supply 3 minutes before Terran and have nowhere to attack and 5k minerals saved up and 25 gateways but the Terran army moves out carefully and kills wave after wave of Protoss units and wins the game. That wasn't imbalanced... that's just how the matchup was. So perhaps the tables are turned now. But if it's a fact that a late game protoss army generally owns a late game terran army of equal supply, that does not have anything to do with balance. Blizz said in that panel that they don't want it like this. They want it pretty even at all stages of the game, rightly imo. Having the matchup be a game of "kill Protoss in <12ish minutes or die" can be balanced but it's not good gameplay. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
| ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
On October 25 2010 23:03 sleepingdog wrote: cloud was down to 11 scvs at one point....which equals death in a sane rts-world; nevertheless he managed to come back thanks to massive mule-calldown and only lost because his opponent just continued to outplay him There's something that bugs me about posts like this. Somebody says "well he was down 11 SCVs which means he should lose the game, but MULEs suddenly saved him" and treats this concept like MULEs are somehow overpowered or that they shouldn't be counted amongst the Terrans workers. MULEs indeed look overpowered when you call a bunch of them at once, because they result in a ginormous income spike and don't show up on the supply counts or worker counts in the observer tabs. But if you count them amongst the Terrans worker force, you get a much more accurate picture. According to Liquipedia, each Mule is about as efficient as 4 SCVs at mining minerals. And if the Terran only uses Mules from his Orbital Command, he can keep 1 up per OC indefinitely. So if you think of it that each OC is adding 4 to the SCV count, and each scan is costing 300 minerals rather than energy, you get a much clearer picture. Since it's standard to make your main and natural OCs and only think about Planetaries at your 3rd and later bases, it's likely that using this rubrick, Cloud was only down 3 workers in the afformentioned game. Which does not equal death in a 'sane rts-world'. Sorry, not much to do with the thread, but it's a statement I see people making on these forums over and over, and it's dumb and needs to be explained. | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On October 26 2010 00:24 Yaotzin wrote: Blizz said in that panel that they don't want it like this. They want it pretty even at all stages of the game, rightly imo. Having the matchup be a game of "kill Protoss in <12ish minutes or die" can be balanced but it's not good gameplay. That's not what I'm saying. The dynamic I'm talking about means each race has an equal chance of winning at all stages of the game but they have different strengths. Basically, one race has a better economy and the other race has a more efficient army. You don't have to kill the Protoss in the first 12 minutes, but if you try to kill him and fail when you had the option to out-expand him, then perhaps you deserve to lose. What Blizzard wants is for the chance to win to be even. They don't want every option for every race to be even. That kills strategy and makes the game boring due to lack of diversity. If at the 10 minute mark the Terran has two equally strong options: power up and do a timing attack at 12 minutes or expand again and head toward a switch to BC's, then that's bad for the game. Those options shouldn't be equally strong. One of those options should actually be better than the other one so that there's a meaningful strategic decision there, not just a stylistic decision of "do I like to play aggressive or do I like to play for a long game" My point is just that one late game army being stronger than another does not automatically mean imbalance. Whatever terms people put the armies in to say that they're imbalanced aren't detailed enough because I can do the same for SC1 PvT and it makes Terran look overpowered when they're not. It's just my guess that people want each race to be able to make the same kinds of decisions and be even the whole time, but that is a bad line of thought because SC is a game of 3 unique races. If both races are making the same kinds of decisions, it's likely that that set of decisions is better for one of the races than it is for the other. | ||
| ||
