EPT[D] Terran play in bigger maps? - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
WickedBit
United States343 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: So you're afraid that Terran might be at some sort of disadvantage? I find that somewhat funny considering Zerg players have been playing with map disadvantages since release, and now that there is a possibility that Terran might have some this concerns you? I think people forgot the diversity of the Terran race, and the shear number of unexplored strategies. This is why Terran's continue to succeed despite all the nerfs, they simply have so many options available that the race is still somewhat unexplored compared to Zerg and to a lesser extent Protoss. I'm confident that Terrans WILL find successful strategies on large maps, it will just be completely different from current play styles because there is currently no drive to create them. Necessity is the mother of innovation, and Terran are the masters of Strategic innovation hands down. terran aggression has been nerfed for small maps, zerg defense has been buffed for small maps. what that usually means is zerg is able to defend on very short notice and relatively quickly, terran's attack options on the other hand have been delayed because they were exceptionally strong on small maps. now if we take these stipulations and apply them to a larger map, zerg can still defend and has more time to, but terran attacks will be delayed due to distance. how it actually pans out is still to be seen but it was definitely a mistake to balance sc2 on blizzard ladder maps if larger maps are what the community wants. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:30 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: So you're afraid that Terran might be at some sort of disadvantage? I find that somewhat funny considering Zerg players have been playing with map disadvantages since release, and now that there is a possibility that Terran might have some this concerns you? I think people forgot the diversity of the Terran race, and the shear number of unexplored strategies. This is why Terran's continue to succeed despite all the nerfs, they simply have so many options available that the race is still somewhat unexplored compared to Zerg and to a lesser extent Protoss. I'm confident that Terrans WILL find successful strategies on large maps, it will just be completely different from current play styles because there is currently no drive to create them. Necessity is the mother of innovation, and Terran are the masters of Strategic innovation hands down. To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
And where did the idea that terran has to have mobility to expand come from? From what I've seen, slow mech pushes are still incredibly strong, and because of their cost efficiency, allow for all sorts of defensive structures to go down like Sensor towers (an incredibly underused structure) and missile turrets to stop harass. Hellions are incredibly fast too, and maybe terran air will get more use now other than the occasional banshee harass, medivacs for only drops/healing and vikings to stop other people from using air. Banshees are great as part of an army composition with awesome dps, and Battlecruisers could see more use on a bigger map where you have more time to tech due to rush distance and don't feel like you have to be AS aggressive. Plus, in large spread out maps, nukes might see more use due to how spread out things are (harder to figure out where it's coming down etc.) | ||
|
Oceaniax
146 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:26 MegaBUD wrote: We need that early harass more than any other race... we have to do economic damage. Toss and even more zerg, can sit passively in their base macroing... We cant affort that. Oh well... enjoy 5min all in and mass marines before the 10min mark. User was temp banned for this post. I don't want to get into a bitching fest here, but have you considered that the reason toss and zerg macro early against terrans is because their early harrassment tools are widely considered to be all-inish? Terran has lower risk when associated with harassment options in terms of being behind in economy and investing in unecessary tech, so it's become quite viable (and even optimal) to perform these attacks, since the risk/reward ratio is signifigantly safer. Two rax, reactor hellion, BF hellion drop, banshee harass, stimmed marine drops, and positional play like tank/thor drops are hard to predict, inflict signifigant damage, and are inexpensive enough in both time and resources to allow macro play in tandem. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:33 Somnolence wrote: I love Starcraft and I love TL but these kind of points make TL balance threads equivalent in quality to Battle.NET cesspool  Which points? The ones where VanGarde is calling out people posting nothing but "Jinro" and "Terran just need to learn to macro, they've 2-based for the past 6 months"? Or the Open Map -> Disadvantage for Terran one? I'd like to see larger maps, just because close positions is ridicilous for zerg to deal with. However, all of his points are quite valid. (Definitely more valid then blanket criticism of them, with no counter-arguments to support it) | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
I don't want to get into a bitching fest here, but have you considered that the reason toss and zerg macro early against terrans is because their early harrassment tools are widely considered to be all-inish? Terran has lower risk when associated with harassment options in terms of being behind in economy and investing in unecessary tech, so it's become quite viable (and even optimal) to perform these attacks, since the risk/reward ratio is signifigantly safer. Two rax, reactor hellion, BF hellion drop, banshee harass, stimmed marine drops, and positional play like tank/thor drops are hard to predict, inflict signifigant damage, and are inexpensive enough in both time and resources to allow macro play in tandem. Like Oceanix said here, Terran has the best harassment units in the entire game, and the most cost efficient. He didn't even mention reapers, which I've seen mid-late game a few times in small numbers used to snipe very important tech structures while tanks defend. A lot of terran units are fantastic on large maps that just haven't been getting used. | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
My god! This must be stopped! | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:38 Bagi wrote: To be honest, your post is alot of fluff but no real proof that terran would excel in macro games. Unexplored strategies? Masters of strategic innovation? Do these statements really have any weight to them? Terrans are using pretty much the same units and strategies they did at release, even after the nerfs. I mean, I hope you are right, I'm just not convinced. And neither should anyone else be until we actually see alot of meaningful terran macro innovation. Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
Atleast for the start we'll be seeing a lot more hellions/drops I think. If those units can effect the early game well enough, terran might be fine. Other than that, I'm fearful. No matter what anyone says, terrans t3 is weaker than z/p and the reason is obviously that terran can get theirs a lot earlier than z/p, but it still leaves the fact that in a 200/200 army the terran t3 units are rather lackluster. I'm more afraid of TvP though, since when toss gets rolling it's almost impossible to stop. Zerg is similar, but atleast the 300/200 will be slower due to distance, so it might give the terran enough time to gather himself for the next confrontation(aswell as in general it's easier to do drops/hellion roast on zerg than toss). I think balance patches will have to follow the map size change though, mainly changing the supply cost of the tank to 2 from 3. But I mean it's anyone's guess right now, maybe we've just been missing something incredibly obvious all this time... Or bigger maps gives us some advantage that isn't easily noticeable... | ||
|
Chise
Japan507 Posts
Terran has a lot more ways to harass than Protoss and Zerg, yet the way most Terrans play is still by going for straight attacks where they mostly use T1/T1,5 units, that are supposed to lose to T3 units. Harassing will become even stronger on larger maps. I can't tell for sure if this kind of playstyle will be good for Terran, but it sounds like a possibility to me. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
Many people are scared to play the Macro Terran game because they've dwelled to long on Bio Spam. Its gonna be hard as personally i believe Terran it the hardest race to play macro style because of our production style, but i would rather play the hard race then the QQ OP Race. Heck we might even get some L8 game buff come HOTs, but w/e in the end its just a game. HF EDIT: P.S. Ever played +3 Base Mech Terran? Its Frikkin Scary. Or +3 Terran Air? Imagine +6 Starport Pumping Banshees and harassing everywhere. L8 game Terran is an unexplored region, and i hope these more Turtle +3 base maps promote that. Not only will it kill alot of gimmicky 1 base plays, but will also allow the macro Terran which depends on 3 or more bases, which has beec limited by crap maps with difficult thirds and backdoors. | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
The structure a unit is produced from is meaningless in the end game, the only distinction between tech requirements is how early in the game they can be produced. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:49 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: Is it really such a problem if Terran do end up disadvantaged? They have been in the map pool advantage seat since release, and if they do end up being disadvantaged, then Blizzard can balance patch from there. I'm just saying its not the end of the world if suddenly Terrans have some map pool disadvantages for a while, and may actually do them some good, as they will be forced to stretch the race to its maximum potential, which I feel like is not happening at the moment as there is really no need or incentive to explore those kinds of playstyles with the strength of rush based all-ins. Taking an antagonistic view to the problem isnt going to help anyone. Terran does not "deserve" to be underpowered just because they've had a good run so far. What matters is getting a balanced end product. People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps. | ||
|
MajorityofOne
Canada2506 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:48 Lysdexia wrote: So what you're saying is, bigger maps will benefit the race that is currently weakest the most, the race that is currently in the middle less, and the race that is currently the strongest the least? My god! This must be stopped! I lol'd | ||
|
Somnolence
Lithuania127 Posts
Which points? The ones where VanGarde is calling out people posting nothing but "Jinro" and "Terran just need to learn to macro, they've 2-based for the past 6 months"? Or the Open Map -> Disadvantage for Terran one? ALL of them. When you click on any balance thread you can assume that majority of the posts will be like that and any good posts or insight from the pros will be buried under this trash. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:36 mahnini wrote: terran aggression has been nerfed for small maps, zerg defense has been buffed for small maps. what that usually means is zerg is able to defend on very short notice and relatively quickly, terran's attack options on the other hand have been delayed because they were exceptionally strong on small maps. now if we take these stipulations and apply them to a larger map, zerg can still defend and has more time to, but terran attacks will be delayed due to distance. how it actually pans out is still to be seen but it was definitely a mistake to balance sc2 on blizzard ladder maps if larger maps are what the community wants. Trying to balance the game off imbalanced maps. I really have no idea what is going on at Blizzard. It's like Blizzard balance team has no control over the maps so whenever they're asked about maps they're like "durr make your own maps?" I guess maybe the idea was to balance the game across a variety of maps. At least they're finally making an attempt to address the map issue. | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:49 Chise wrote: I kind of feel that Terran lategame only feels weak because of the current metagame. Terran has a lot more ways to harass than Protoss and Zerg, yet the way most Terrans play is still by going for straight attacks where they mostly use T1/T1,5 units, that are supposed to lose to T3 units. Harassing will become even stronger on larger maps. I can't tell for sure if this kind of playstyle will be good for Terran, but it sounds like a possibility to me. What annoys me a bit when talking about terran is the fact z/p think terran players actually want to use rine/rauder. The problem is, further down the line, there is very little to be thrilled getting. This acts differently between the MUs. TvP: Ghost good Tank sucks Raven good Banshee good, though a bit niche Thor decent but slow BC bad TvZ: Ghost bad(if they fixed shift+snipe it'd be sooo awesome...) Tank good Raven niche good Banshee niche good Thor good for 1 role, controlling surrounding air space/forcing multi box(ugh always forget the term  )BC bad There's nothing really that we've got that makes me think "ohh if I get this unit, I'm in good shape". Heck I'm by far more turned on by my +attack upgrades than any of those units. Especially TvZ, we don't have anything except t1 to deal with mutas anyway(ok thors guarded by turrets...) so that forces t1 anyway(and on bigger maps = mutas are better, so go figure...). Edit: Btw I'm glad we're getting bigger maps. I just don't think it's very bright balancing the races to small maps and then expecting everything to be fine on huge maps. | ||
|
Somnolence
Lithuania127 Posts
People advocate big maps for a more balanced game, but if introducing bigger maps creates more imbalanced than it solves, is it really worth it? I just think its a problem that could be acknowledged before rushing into the pool of big maps. It is simple, really. If e-sports need longer matches and only bigger maps can provide them then we need to start using them and balance the game around them. | ||
| ||
