|
On June 29 2014 06:18 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 05:42 Ghanburighan wrote:Sorry for the delay, here's Aligulac 113.. The previous list(s) can be found at the end of this post. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Oc9x1bJ.png) Looking at the winrates, P has extended its advantage over T, P has also gained some ground back against Z, yet TvZ has strongly turned in Z favour once gain (it's as bad as it was before the hellbat patch in April). Population numbers are also worse. Previously there were 4x more ZvZ games than TvT games, now there are more than 5x. PvP's have not changed in number, so it's mostly just less terrans and more zergs getting further that's creating the problem. All in all, balance-wise this was a very depressing period. 5 more ZvZ compared to TvT indicates something much more serious than the winrate itself. Only the very best Terran remains and they are the ones that still have a low winrate against good or mediocre Zerg players.
To be fair a significant part of that diifference between amounf of ZvZ and TvT comes from all these Oceania regions small tourneys. I don't know why but seems like almost all of these players play Zerg
Like for example: http://aligulac.com/results/events/29155-SEAcraft-Weekly/
Edit:
On other hand i looked for WCS statistics for 2014 and its still 3:1 ratio of PvP anf ZvZ to TvT. Bettert than 5:1 but really bad for main sc2 tournament.
|
On June 29 2014 07:16 PinheadXXXXXX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2014 06:04 keglu wrote:On June 29 2014 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2014 03:58 keglu wrote:On June 29 2014 03:09 Salient wrote:On June 29 2014 02:16 Mojito99 wrote:
T v P lategame is somewhat missunderstood i feel like.
A true ghost viking composition is in theory at least on par if not stronger vs P lategame.
The issue being that in these scenarios control is key. And the T lategame army requires significantly more control then the P lategame army. Right now there are only a couple of Terrans who willingly go to the lategame vs P and their control shows it.
It becomes sort of a downward spiral: T lategame is harder to control, therefore try to end it in the midgame - but that also means you get less practice for the lategame. I sort of agree. Taeja made late game TvP look imbalanced in favor of Terran when he 4-0'd MC, 3-0'd HerO, 2-0'd Patience and Oz, and also 2-0'd a few EU foreigners (who have been known to take games or even series from Koreans) all within the course of a week. He made his opponents look kind of helpless. It was interesting to me because his opponents are known for good PvT. Team Liquid did a strategy highlight article about HerO's PvT because it was so good. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/445605-how-to-run-a-pvt-clinic-hero-at-iem Taeja on top of his game is at level ofthese top Kespa players, tier above Koreans playing in EU/US. Yeah, but if the only thing that is keeping terrans down is a lack of execution then we can just stop balance whining now and admit the game is balanced and that terrans are just lazy. You don't just ignore evidence presented of *how* to TvP just so you can say that Terrans are underpowered. What Taeja's run shows is that the two races are actually *very* close to being balanced but there is something small that is preventing lowbies from performing as well as Taeja and Maru. It can't be that the game is a hard and has a skill ceiling because TL has taught me that SC2 is ezmode. So I wonder what it is that is seperating top level players from non-top-level players... I'm ok with late game TvP, I feel like it's in Terran player hands (neutralize/avoid AoE and win). Bio TvZ is in much worse state. That's not even true though. Even if Terran controls perfectly, they still have to win upwards of 3-4 battles to absolutely close the game out, and if they screw up even once than protoss wins. Terran cannot pursue protoss into cannons, warpins, and backup storms, and instead must effectively starve Protoss out, but if Protoss wins a battle then they have won the game.
I can't agree with generalization like that one. Protoss have advantage in 200/200 scenarios with reverted production cycle but Terran also hase advantages in late game like possibility of sacking scv.
|
Pro players generally tend to want to stick with refined known strategies rather than unrefined new ones.
Have you watched any pro games as of late? Terrans have been experimenting alot with new Hellbat-based openings and as a result the meta is now slightly more Roach-based.
The issue here is that it doens't change anything fundamentally related to the 12th-14th minute mark, but simply forces zergs to take into account new openings for the terran player. If anything, I would argue it makes the matchup slightly more coinflippy. Eventually it will probably end up with terrans just doing the same 3cc opening but using Hellbats instead of Hellions in the 11th minute 1/1 push. That will probably force the zerg player to have 1-3 less drones than prior to the patch, and I doubt that will be enough to balance out the midgame assymetry.
It was nerfed in response to a tirade of persistent QQ and design concerns and cries that TvZ had become stale (4M all day every day). I remember this period well as I wrote about it in a blog post summarising my thoughts on balance and design. .
Blizzard held off nerfing Widow Mines in a time where it looked strong. But it only looked strong because zerg was hugely overrepresented at the end of WOL, and superior terran players were being faced up against inferior zerg players + zergs hadn't yet learned how to play against it. But a couple of months into HOTS after the worst patchzergs had dropped out of code S/A, you started seeing zergs figuring out and we saw a nice back-and fourth matchup.
It was nerfed in response to a tirade of persistent QQ and design concerns and cries that TvZ had become stale (4M all day every day).
Either you didn't properly read my post or your not actually watching pro games, because the only effect in terms of compostions the patch resulted in was terrans sometimes added the Hellbat to the composition, and that unit adds absolutely zero in terms of interactions to the game. As I pointed out in my own post, through the same logic Blizzard might as well nerf the Baneling splash significantly since everyone goes Muta/Bling. At least that would make sense from a balance perspective.
The Tank btw IMO gets way too much (irrational) credit due to it's BW status. The only reason the Tank worked along bioplay in BW was because terran had map control. That made the Tank an incremental part in breaking the defensive Lurker lines of the zerg player, rather than making it possible for the terran player to effectively turtle.
In Sc2 terran bio + tank doesn't have map control and is forced to turtle. At the end of WOL it was just 14 minute turtle into 2/2 timing. So even if tank-play actually worked in TvZ along with bio, it would still result in relatively boring gameplay. Ofc, it's nice with some more variation, but Blizzard has previously stated they will only make changes if they are sure they will be awesome. So let's look at how the Widow Mine/Tank-patch worked out for Blizzard here;
- They gambled with TvZ balance --> Didn't end up very well
- They tried to make new compostions viable --> We some times see more Hellbat usage, but almost never Tanks along with bio.
- Interactionwise, Zerg now requires less micro than previously, because they don't need to split their units before a battle as Speedlings tanks Widow Mine shots very well. In the midgame. Hellbats doesn't add extra micro to the game in the midgame.
- We now also see fewer engagements in most TvZ bio games as terran has the inferior army at the 12th-14th min mark, and thus needs to play more defensively. This seems like a pretty bad effect of the patch as well.
So following Blizzards "patching"-rules, this patch seems totally out of place.
If you look back in history, Blizzard actually thought about nerfing Banelings in early WOL before terrans learned to split their Marines. But terrans improved and adapted, and Blizzards changed their mind. The same thing occured in HOTS basically: The new Widow Mine was introduced, looked imba early on because a lot of zergs weren't very good at the game (just like a lot of terrans sucked at the game early WOL). Then they improved, and it looked balanced. Yet, Blizzard nerfed this unit, and regardless of how you look at it, it has been an absolute disaster. Especially since they thought they could incentivize more Tank/Bio usage in TvZ by nerfing the attack cooldown attack on Siege Tanks.
No. But, you are imposing your own POV onto the past.
I wrote that it IMO was fun to play against it (that should make it apparent that it indeed was more own opinion). Fun is obviously a subjective measurement, but design-wise I believe it was generally agreed upon, that it made the matchup a lot better. For refference, TLO and Ret have argued in favor of it, since it actually forces the zerg to micro during engagements which increases the mechanical skill ceiling.
When that is said, the Widow Mine could obviously have been done even better. Splash AOE was perhaps too high and it was indeed quite unforgiving to play against (which created frustrations amongst some players). While changing the Widow Mine never made sense according to Blizzard's patching rules, they should still have proceeded differently given that they in this case were willing to break their own rules.
If splash was reduced, then it should have been compensated in a different way. For instance, they could have made it a lot more practical to focus fire with it so you still could use it to kill banelings. Just nerfing a unit that balances the matchups and not compensating the race in a proper way was IMO the biggest error in the patching history of Sc2.
Why hasn't Blizzard nerfed forcefields yet btw? It's frustrating to play against, so what would happen if duration was reduced to 5 seconds (?)... Yeh obviously that would create huge a gigantic imbalance. But at least they would change a unit everybody hated. Nerfing a unit that was essential for the TvZ balance and that is (at the very least) at lot more wellliked than Sentrys was beyond dumb.
TvZ win/rates
Just to support my claim that 4M looked strong early HOTS, but was eventually "figured out".
According to Aliguac, w/r early HOTS was around 52-55% in TvZ. In September, however, it was down to 48%. then 52% in October and afterwards 50% in November.
|
Another interesting "fact" about the Aliguac numbers from 12-25th June: In terms of non-mirror matchups, there was only a terran player in 54.6% of the games. That is the lowest ever for terran. During the patchzerg era it was arond 56-57%. The only situation where a race has been so underpresented was back in October 2010 where there only was a zerg player in 54.2% of non mirror matchups (there are no Aliguac numbers prior to that month FYI).
For the entire period of June, terran is still at 56.1% down from 57.9% in May.
|
I'm wondering when Blizzard will finally step up and admit Terran is in shambles... There is so much data that supports it...
|
On June 29 2014 21:24 SC2Toastie wrote:
I'm wondering when Blizzard will finally step up and admit Terran is in shambles... There is so much data that supports it...
Ladder win/rates are still 50/50. That's the only number David Kim looks at.
I think if Blizzard hired one statistical guy to consult on balance matters, we would see some big balance changes relatively soon.
|
I gotta agree with Hider that the widow mine patch was completely unnecessary and from a balance perspective came completely out of the blue at that time.
Not sure if it's the only thing leading to that kind of zerg dominance, given how - hands down, they are and were not in the top 3 Zergs in the world - Curious and DRG could handle INnoVations widow mine play. But it was definitely a catalyst.
As usual, I'm of the opinion that balance problems should be adressed in a somewhat direct manner - in this case mutalisks themselves - instead of adding superpowerful options "to prevent the problem from coming up" which may just lead to their own imbalances and in general just delay said imbalance. (like we saw in the periode right before the WM patch, in which mass mutalisks was already pretty strong at killing 5th bases. It was just reached later, so the problems with expanding started at 20mins instead of the 12-16min for Terran right now)
Even more since Mech wouldn't profit from repatching the widow mine, while I think the mine itself is in an OK spot, being able to kill multiple banelings/zerglings or certain units much over its own value with one burst attack, while possibly being reusable.
|
What if photon overcharge was just weaker vs. biological units? That way Terran could tickle Protoss before the medivac timing instead of hopelessly defending vs oracles, etc, AND PvP stayed the same...
|
@ Hider, sorry, I am at work and don't have the time to parse out the post. Some of your response to me seem awry or wrongly broken up. Anyway, I watch SC2 less these days than I used to - what I do watch is generally SPL/Code S/Code A. These days I have not been watching PL as much either. But, from recent games I have watched, Hellbat usage has been mainly timing based. But, this is what I would expect when a unit is buffed. This is because timings and all-ins are the easiest to refine and develop as builds. Using buffed units as part of an overall macro based strategy takes more time. For example, it may be that Hellbats can be used to pressure in the same way that Protoss can use Blink Stalkers to pressure. These developments remain to be seen as good pro Terrans think and work on their game in the break.
This is why I said, I'll wait for next season before making a decision.
I don't get your point on interactions. A timing is an interaction as much as interactions based on long term macro based play built on pressure. It may not be the type of interaction you like or think valuable but that is inherently subjective and remains an interaction regardless. So, some Terrans like you may not like it because it may be A-move while other Terrans may actually like it because it may be A-move. Moreover, the interaction here while A-move could lead to less A-move in other stages of the game as strategies develop and evolve to counter each other. Again, time is needed.
Finally, I said that Blizzard responded to the QQ and other criticism at the time. This was manifold. From Zerg's saying WM was too strong and a bad unit designwise, to 4M was too strong (many Zerg QQ arguments revolved around getting 3/3 at Infestation and not Hive) and from some spectators that the once wonderful TvZ was becoming stale. I have no objection to giving it to Blizzard when they deserve it, but here, I genuinely feel they held off until finally responding to the community (and then getting smashed for it months later). My point is that you seem to think that era was wonderful - but some Zergs and some spectators didn't. And your comment that the WM nerf is akin to the Queen patch is just sheer hyperbole. Do I think the WM nerf was warranted? No. But, then, I generally want Blizzard to stay the fuck out of the game after release. (The only HOTS patch I think reasonable was the Hellbat nerf.) But, in your frustration, I think you are rewriting the past.
|
When I use interaction I am talking about how the players micro. E.g. Banelings creates interactions since it forces the terran to split his Marines. Stronger Widow Mines did the same thing since Zergs had to take them serios. Right now, zerg can almost amove the terran bio ball since Speedlings soak up Widow Mine shots quite easily.
genuinely feel they held off until finally responding to the community (and then getting smashed for it months later). My point is that you seem to think that era was wonderful - but some Zergs and some spectators didn't. And your comment that the WM nerf is akin to the Queen patch is just sheer hyperbole. Do I think the WM nerf was warranted? No. But, then, I generally want Blizzard to stay the !@#$%^&* out of the game after release. (The only HOTS patch I think reasonable was the Hellbat nerf.) But, in your frustration, I think you are rewriting the past.
Difference between you and I in this case is that I am backing up my arguments with numbers. Aliguac numbers clearly demonstrates that there wasn't any obvious balance issue with 4MMM. If you read the ZParcraft 2 thread you will find several TvZ games where the matchup looked absolutely fine. From my experience, those types of games were the norm in the September-November period. Standard Parade-pushes were quite rare in that period.
Further, Blizzards main argument seemed to be that they wanted players to mix in Siege tanks with Widow Mines. I don't think they thought the matchup was imbalanced (because anyone looking at the fact wouldn't actually come to the conclusion). But I remember posting prior to the patch there was simply no way that terrans were going to mix in Tanks and Widow Mines becasue they had absolutely terrible synergy, and according to Blizzard, that was how they thought the matchup would be balanced.
But, from recent games I have watched, Hellbat usage has been mainly timing based. But, this is what I would expect when a unit is buffed. This is because timings and all-ins are the easiest to refine and develop as builds. Using buffed units as part of an overall macro based strategy takes more time. For example, it may be that Hellbats can be used to pressure in the same way that Protoss can use Blink Stalkers to pressure. These developments remain to be seen as good pro Terrans think and work on their game in the break.
I thikn it's just clear you don't play the game, and thus doesn't think in terms of the potenital impact it could have on the game. Why on earth would the free transformation have any impact on bio play in the late game? Your simply just making up random statements here.
As usual, I'm of the opinion that balance problems should be adressed in a somewhat direct manner - in this case mutalisks themselves - instead of adding superpowerful options "to prevent the problem from coming up" which may just lead to their own imbalances and in general just delay said imbalance. (like we saw in the periode right before the WM patch, in which mass mutalisks was already pretty strong at killing 5th bases. It was just reached later, so the problems with expanding started at 20mins instead of the 12-16min for Terran right now)
I remember games from preWidow Mine patch where we suddenly began seeing Mutalisks simply from expo to expo and kill eveyrthing incredibly fast. Terrans looked to have lots of trouble with them and I also argued for a Mutalisk nerf to be added into the Widow Mine nerf. However, terrans seems to have adjusted by mixing in Thors, and in most pro games it's kinda rare that we see games where Mutalisks absolutely dominate.
Ofc a Mutalisk nerf would adress mid and late game balance, but it doesn't really impact the interactions of the game. Personally, I really find it problematic how easy the batlte micro is for Zerg and I think the game would be a ton better if Zerg was forced to split their units before engaging Widow Mines. That's why I would prefer a change to that unit.It doesn't have to be a reversion to the old splash damage, but more practical target firing could work as well (I think).
Further, stronger Widow Mines makes it easier for terran to move out on the map/be aggressive in the 12th-14th minute mark. A small nerf to Muta regen wouldn't really accomplish the same thing (as effectively at least).
At last, I always prefer to look at changes that both improves balance + encourage more aggression/multitasking. Lower regen on Mutalisks would probably deincentivize harassing with it. One of the "tricks" I have added to my gameplay is when I see my opponent harassing my base with Mutalisks. I immedaitely send a dropship to one of his bases as he is opening himself up for counterdropplay when his Mutalisks are harassing my base. So in this scenario, the game become more multitaskbased when Mutalisks are rewarded for harassing.
|
You don't understand. I am not saying that Blizzard just looked at the numbers. I said that Blizzard also responded to the community (which whined for a period of months). Moreover, I noted at that time, that there is always a discrepancy between the speed at which the meta changes and how quickly that is reflected in balance numbers. One reason, I don't like to go just by the numbers. This is one reason why I argued against the WM nerf at that time (and still do, come to that).
Secondly, I am not making up anything. I am saying it is too early to tell if all the Hellbat buff leads to is timings. In fact, I think you are making up random statements. You don't know the game that well, no-one does, don't pretend that you do.
|
On June 29 2014 17:28 SC2Toastie wrote:
I'm starting to think this is a poor joke. Terran has been severely underperforming for 7 months, and as of yet, stats have actually been getting worse instead of better. That is downright insulting to Terran players and very, very bad for tge game in general. It's time to tackle some of the opvious flaws in this game (which can only happen in lotv) and it is time to finally buff terran majotly. Stim, Tanks, Thor, BC, Banshee, all these units have potential, but are pathetically weak... Useless, dare I say.
It may also be timw to just let go of Time Warp, Ocvercharge, Mutaspeed etcetera, and try to tone those down a bit.
It's b/c Blizzard's logic to buffing Terran's is as follows: "It looks like we have a real problem with TvP Blink. I know, lets make building armor upgrade free! That should help! Oh, we also see a real problem with TvZ early economy. I know, lets reduce the cost of durable materials. That should help! Problem solved.
Bottom line: The things they are buffing bring little to no value to the state of Terran. It took Zergs a week to figure out they need to build a Roach Warren and 4 queens to hold any all-in. Ultimately their economy remains unchanged if they play the new "meta" correctly.
|
On June 30 2014 07:16 aZealot wrote:You don't understand. I am not saying that Blizzard just looked at the numbers. I said that Blizzard also responded to the community (which whined for a period of months). Moreover, I noted at that time, that there is always a discrepancy between the speed at which the meta changes and how quickly that is reflected in balance numbers. One reason, I don't like to go just by the numbers. This is one reason why I argued against the WM nerf at that time (and still do, come to that). Secondly, I am not making up anything. I am saying it is too early to tell if all the Hellbat buff leads to is timings. In fact, I think you are making up random statements. You don't know the game that well, no-one does, don't pretend that you do.
No because your not thinking about how the changes impacts builds at all. I asked you to give me a theroetical answer to how the Hellbat change could impact anything later game and you couldn't come up with one answer. Are you aware that terrans prior to the patch could build Hellbats in the midgame and the late game and that nothing is changed in that regard?
You might as well argue that a BC buff would make TvP early game better balanced. It's that absurd. And then when I answer that it won't have any impact (cus obvious) you argue that I don't know the game well enough to make such statements.....
|
Im still at a loss why Hellbats can be healed by medivac. Pretty much my only gripe about this game.
|
On June 30 2014 10:47 Fat_Elephant wrote:
Im still at a loss why Hellbats can be healed by medivac. Pretty much my only gripe about this game.
I wouldn't mind if Hellbats and Hellions could be healed, and I wouldn't mind if Hellions and Hellbats CANT be healed. But having 50/50 on them is a bit weird.
|
On June 30 2014 12:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2014 10:47 Fat_Elephant wrote:
Im still at a loss why Hellbats can be healed by medivac. Pretty much my only gripe about this game. I wouldn't mind if Hellbats and Hellions could be healed, and I wouldn't mind if Hellions and Hellbats CANT be healed. But having 50/50 on them is a bit weird.
That is weird. Also the hellbat has not met its goal of making mech viable outside of TVT. At this point I think they should just remove it and replace it with firebats.
|
On June 30 2014 06:21 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +As usual, I'm of the opinion that balance problems should be adressed in a somewhat direct manner - in this case mutalisks themselves - instead of adding superpowerful options "to prevent the problem from coming up" which may just lead to their own imbalances and in general just delay said imbalance. (like we saw in the periode right before the WM patch, in which mass mutalisks was already pretty strong at killing 5th bases. It was just reached later, so the problems with expanding started at 20mins instead of the 12-16min for Terran right now) I remember games from preWidow Mine patch where we suddenly began seeing Mutalisks simply from expo to expo and kill eveyrthing incredibly fast. Terrans looked to have lots of trouble with them and I also argued for a Mutalisk nerf to be added into the Widow Mine nerf. However, terrans seems to have adjusted by mixing in Thors, and in most pro games it's kinda rare that we see games where Mutalisks absolutely dominate. Ofc a Mutalisk nerf would adress mid and late game balance, but it doesn't really impact the interactions of the game. Personally, I really find it problematic how easy the batlte micro is for Zerg and I think the game would be a ton better if Zerg was forced to split their units before engaging Widow Mines. That's why I would prefer a change to that unit.It doesn't have to be a reversion to the old splash damage, but more practical target firing could work as well (I think). Further, stronger Widow Mines makes it easier for terran to move out on the map/be aggressive in the 12th-14th minute mark. A small nerf to Muta regen wouldn't really accomplish the same thing (as effectively at least). At last, I always prefer to look at changes that both improves balance + encourage more aggression/multitasking. Lower regen on Mutalisks would probably deincentivize harassing with it. One of the "tricks" I have added to my gameplay is when I see my opponent harassing my base with Mutalisks. I immedaitely send a dropship to one of his bases as he is opening himself up for counterdropplay when his Mutalisks are harassing my base. So in this scenario, the game become more multitaskbased when Mutalisks are rewarded for harassing.
I don't think Thors with bio can hold off the mutalisk harass in the lategame. They are too slow to defend all 4bases + 5th bases that you eventually need. You still need way too many turrets with them to afford the amount of production+bases you need to keep up with zerg on time.
Here's a few oldschool games to show the difference between the old and the new metagame and the mutalisks role in it:
INnoVation vs Soulkey on Whirlwind from over a year ago.
Zerg has 80drones on 4bases at 11mins. No difference to now (unlike what many people claim).
Terran's 4th base and 3extra barracks started: 13:40
Terran's 4th base landed: 16:10
Why is this affordable? Amount of turrets per base ~1.
What happens when Soulkey destroys INnoVations third at 17:45? Base gets rebuilt on location with 1 turret protection.
Why did this work? The Mutalisks are staying at home.
The adapted metagame, Curious vs INnoVation:
Exact same build from Terran.
Curious holds on with a decent muta count until 17mins. Then he has acquired a breathing window and just ramps up the muta count and starts to punish INnoVation for not massing turrets everywhere. He still takes some damage in the counter, but the supplies start to tell the tale.
20:30-26:30: INnoVation is busy defending his 3-4bases against mass mutas with his whole army.
28mins, after consecutively defending at his 3rd, his main and his natural (while taking massive losses and hardly scratching the mutas) he has no chance to have anything close to his 5th base location to defend against 30+ mutalisks.
It still becomes quite a nice back and forth endgame, but I think that is also hugely due to Curious not expanding as much as he could and eventually INnoVation dies to not being able to hold on to a running economy, either losing the 4th or the 5th, defending the other base(s).
Curious vs Flash
15min 4th landing by Flash (when do we ever see these kinds of 4ths these days?).
Loses because he is not able to keep 4bases alive against mass muta, despite catching 15mutalisks at 19:30, he loses his third at 21mins to them. What he didn't have was turrets anywhere, to afford being equal with the zerg.
I think you see what I'm getting at. The different mutalisk usage - combined with the smaller chance of dying before getting to mass mutas - makes it harder to even acquire your 4th base. You spend more money on turrets and less on production, but also get less mining.
In the lategame, banelings/ultras can (and could) stop your bio pushes regardless of what the mutalisks do, which makes it near impossible to ever get a 5th base - or even hold your 4bases when you want to push. While seeing 5th and 6th bases out of the zerg has become very standard.
As a Zerg player you can play this defensive into base denying style everygame against bio. And once you reach the lategame with mass mutas, the Terran will starve or run into his death with a push that he can't win, because his whole army is tinkered to deal with mutalisks, not banelings and ultralisks. It works 9 out of 10times against bio imo, the only hard part is reaching it against the - still strong - 3base pushes/harass of Terran, or whatever hellbat build gets patched into the game to make the matchup more coinflippy.
Mutalisks have to get tackled imo, or Terrans cannot play a bio lategame ever. It's a question of acquiring and holding bases.
|
After reading DWF's editorial, and thinking about my own experience with Terran and its matchups, I think I've come up with a (widow mine) buff to terran that: Promotes micro on both sides, does not reward A-move from terrans side at all, and doesn't change the stat of the unit in any way. Currently, widow mines are just too unreliable against lategame zerg armies. My simple suggestion is this: Give widowmines a manual targeting feature. Make it an actual key you have to press, like R. Make it so that this Manual Targetting command only applies to 1 widowmine per R click, like storm or any other caster ability.
You might say that you can already manual target with widowmines. This is absolutely true, BUT you have to manually click each individual mine, and then click its target. If you have all the time in the world this is easy, but when the zerg army is rolling at you you will NEVER have the time to manually target any more than 2 mines AND split sufficient. Furthermore, you cannot even select all your widowmines and shift-target multiple units like different banelings or whatever, since the stupid mine AI will just overkill the target with literally all mines in range.
This change would simply make it easier to actually utilize mines without getting into the messy numbers of the unit. It would allow mines to actually target the threatening units like baneling clumps and allow Terran to compete better against lategame zerg armies. Not through a buff in power, but through a buff in ease-of-access.
FOR A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION
Mines have 5 range. Currently, even if using the inefficient click mine, click target method, YOU CANNOT TARGET A UNIT, SHIFT OR OTHERWISE, outside 5 range. With my proposed change, we keep the range the same but add a cast range of Manual Targetting to something like 7. When the Terran presses the Manual Targetting key and clicks an enemy unit, that unit is tagged by a single mine (the closest mine to the target, like any other targeted ability). The mine will NOT attack any other target, except the one tagged, when it gets into the widowmine's range (5) so long as the tagged unit remains in the Tagged range (something like 7). If the tagged unit gets out of the tagged range, than the tag is lost and the widowmine returns to automatic function like it does right now.
If a widowmine is currently targetting a unit automatically, and is in the 1.5 second phase before it shoots, and is issued a Manual Targetting command, it will drops its current target and behave like the mine in the situation above (won't attack any unit except the tagged unit, when the tagged unit comes in the mines attack range and as long as the unit doesn't leave the mines "tagged range").
I think, ultimately, it's a change that would:
Add more micro on the terrans side (targeting mines)
Add more micro on the zergs side (splitting to mitigate damage)
Give absolutely 0 advantage to an A-moving terran player who doesn't target
Punish a zerg who doesn't micro vs a player that targets.
All without changing the numbers of the unit at all from what it is right now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
should just remake terran. remove marauders. stop trying to force styles on races that only end up limiting.
|
@BigJ.
But notice you only showed me one game with Mutalisk dominating. After Curious vs Innovation (and some Scarlett games), I thought Mutalisks would indeed be extremely dominant in every late game TvZ, but it turned out to be the exception rather than the rule. I can't remember the last time I saw 30 Mutalisks in a progame completley owning the terran player
On June 30 2014 17:25 Sajaki wrote:
After reading DWF's editorial, and thinking about my own experience with Terran and its matchups, I think I've come up with a (widow mine) buff to terran that: Promotes micro on both sides, does not reward A-move from terrans side at all, and doesn't change the stat of the unit in any way. Currently, widow mines are just too unreliable against lategame zerg armies. My simple suggestion is this: Give widowmines a manual targeting feature. Make it an actual key you have to press, like R. Make it so that this Manual Targetting command only applies to 1 widowmine per R click, like storm or any other caster ability.
You might say that you can already manual target with widowmines. This is absolutely true, BUT you have to manually click each individual mine, and then click its target. If you have all the time in the world this is easy, but when the zerg army is rolling at you you will NEVER have the time to manually target any more than 2 mines AND split sufficient. Furthermore, you cannot even select all your widowmines and shift-target multiple units like different banelings or whatever, since the stupid mine AI will just overkill the target with literally all mines in range.
This change would simply make it easier to actually utilize mines without getting into the messy numbers of the unit. It would allow mines to actually target the threatening units like baneling clumps and allow Terran to compete better against lategame zerg armies. Not through a buff in power, but through a buff in ease-of-access.
FOR A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION
Mines have 5 range. Currently, even if using the inefficient click mine, click target method, YOU CANNOT TARGET A UNIT, SHIFT OR OTHERWISE, outside 5 range. With my proposed change, we keep the range the same but add a cast range of Manual Targetting to something like 7. When the Terran presses the Manual Targetting key and clicks an enemy unit, that unit is tagged by a single mine (the closest mine to the target, like any other targeted ability). The mine will NOT attack any other target, except the one tagged, when it gets into the widowmine's range (5) so long as the tagged unit remains in the Tagged range (something like 7). If the tagged unit gets out of the tagged range, than the tag is lost and the widowmine returns to automatic function like it does right now.
If a widowmine is currently targetting a unit automatically, and is in the 1.5 second phase before it shoots, and is issued a Manual Targetting command, it will drops its current target and behave like the mine in the situation above (won't attack any unit except the tagged unit, when the tagged unit comes in the mines attack range and as long as the unit doesn't leave the mines "tagged range").
I think, ultimately, it's a change that would:
Add more micro on the terrans side (targeting mines)
Add more micro on the zergs side (splitting to mitigate damage)
Give absolutely 0 advantage to an A-moving terran player who doesn't target
Punish a zerg who doesn't micro vs a player that targets.
All without changing the numbers of the unit at all from what it is right now.
.
I like this kind of thught as well and more practical focus firing so zerg is forced to split up his Banelings has been my suggested approach for a while as well. This way we avoid the whole issue of too high AOE killing lots of zerg units when the zerg looks away for a moment.
One thing I have been suggested here, is that the 1.5second timer shouldn't be reset when you focus fire with it. That will mean you can more often click on a baneling during a battle without the Widow Mine getting killed before firing a shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
