|
On October 16 2014 09:28 ZenithM wrote:
I'll cordially admit that Terran is possibly the strongest race right now. So I won't bother with trying to cordially pass my race off as balanced like most Zerg and Protoss like to do and instead I'll say this: he's right, Terran is strong, whoopty doo, it will probably patched after 2-3 major tournament wins.
If I was really honest and well intentioned, I'd go beg the battle.net threads for a nerf to my race, but I find that counter-productive, so I'll just abuse it for as long as I can and answer to snarky comments with snarky comments of my own.
Nah, blizz is much lazier now a days.
Remember it would take them one MVP game to decide to nerf bat Terran?
Did they patch when terrains took over gomtvt? Nope.
MVP uses ghosts vs Zerg? Patch.
Thorazine uses Thors? Patch.
Protoss loses to Protoss? Patch.
Now they wait until multiple tournament wins before even discussing that something is wrong.
Blizzard be some lazy fucks.
|
On October 15 2014 15:13 Big J wrote:That was your statement: Show nested quote +Please explain why zergs are still attacking from 1 direction with no flanks with muta/ling/bling; the fastest moving army comp in the game. That was how Scarlett beat Bomber with mass banes before mine-nerf was reverted (vs Z). That was how soO fought against Innovation, and lost after the patch.
Spoiled zergs are gonna have to take a few spanking before they learn to use their mobility to flank their opponents. You didn't put it as "flanks can be good" or something. You put it in a way that says that Zerg's who do not flank will take a few spankings. Which I disproved with textbook TvZ examples, in which Zergs won games without flankings. Never did I say flanks are unviable in general. However, the lack of seeing them in many combats makes me think that for good reasons (e.g. lack of time; impossibility to set up flanks in many positions; moving bigger parts of your army out of position being a risk in itself...) it is often just not reasonable to expect a zerg to flank in the current metagame. You put in aggressive phrases like "spoiled zergs" and the way you phrased that first sentence obviously implies that Zergs are not skilled enough in one way or another to use flanks, since you answer the question yourself that Zergs just should flank. Since you are resorting to personal attacking now - oh how I'm suffering from my own insecurity  - I'm gonna leave it up to selfreflection whether next time you really want to stand behind a such a comment - that when nicely interpreted may be seen as emotional.
Since only top players are accepted by the majority here as metrics for balance, my comment was regarding them, not you. Get that straight please. However my comments appeared, it wasn't directed at the any of the posters in this thread.
Spoiled does not imply less skilled. It implies just that, skilled but not willing. I suspected your own insecurity as the most reasonable explanation for this leap in logic.
My comments were made without the context of the information later made available by other posters. But you just took it to another level. And that's just you being you.
|
On October 16 2014 09:00 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2014 08:48 Eraz0rZ wrote:
Terrans admit it, you cant micro vs chargelots and thats why you want your patch mines.
So you can autokill any chargelot without effort or skill.
Because thats literally what it did to the matchup, Remove zealots alltogether. Oh God, the irony...
Oh i know very well that chargelots dont require the most micro, but i also know that small packs of chargelots just melt to any bio. That is balanced.
But in this matchup, you cant make chargelots anymore at all.
Except maybe for that one warpprism wich can do damage once and then gets shutdown by vikings.
The fact is, zealots are useless in PvT now adays. Mines kill them WAY too cost effective.
And what else we have to dump minerals in whilst still bolstering army? cannons? so the terrans can ALL be super greedy because we spent all our minerals in cannons and not actuall units?
Either mines get dumb again and start overkilling on the ONLY nearest unit again. Or they need to be removed from the game. Just like terran is removing a staple early game unit from protoss from the game.
You dont think its fair? Well what you terrans are doing now isnt fair. This isnt balanced. This is QQ town where blizz listens to and kills Esports with.
Since patch i stopped playing alltogether untill blizzard recognizes this problem. There is no point when some units arent played at all anymore. Making units 'promoting' your game with 'cool' tactics and then remove units and creativity because the troll terran community wants to kill sc2 alltogether so they can have there cheap wins. No thanks.
If they dont get fixed fast enough me and many a protoss will stop playing alltogether.
|
Are chargelot snot being made anymore? When did this happen?
|
On October 16 2014 09:28 ZenithM wrote:
So I won't bother with trying to cordially pass my race off as balanced like most Zerg and Protoss like to do
Can we address how hypocritical this is? Just a little bit? You do know that there is a faction of your race that actually believes that in a balanced state, terran players should just win more than their share because they happen to be better at the game? Somehow I haven't seen large amounts of zergs of protosses make this argument seriously.
I hold the belief that terrans are more entitled than the other races, but I'm willing to agree that this is likely coming from my bias. But to say you are less entitled as a race, that is a bit much.
|
I didn't say that Terrans don't try to convince the others their race is balanced, I just said that the other two races definitely do, and I definitely don't.
I didn't say it, but I thought it, so you were right in the end.
Edit: lol that's a bit convoluted.
tl;dr; you're right, I'm a bad man, I made an overgeneralization.
Onto more interesting topics, do you think that even if the game was balanced, we would notice it? I guess what I'm asking myself here is, what would be the criteria to determine that the game is indeed balanced? I think we have a plethora of criteria to say that the game isn't balanced, but it's not easy to define perfect balance. Is it just the absence of imbalance? Is it counteracting imbalances? Does some kind of "X is strong early game, Y is strong late game" suffice?
I mean, in this thread I'm sure people even talked about balance in mirror matchups, which I find a bit ridiculous in the grand scheme of things, but whatever. This tells me that people won't ever be satisfied with the game balance, so we have to rely on it being fun to play first and foremost and give up this idea of competitve eSportS level of game with different races. This shit won't ever be balanced anyway. Give everyone the same super cool and interesting race, and watch the ultimate test of skill unfold before your eyes.
|
On October 16 2014 10:16 ZenithM wrote:
I didn't say that Terrans don't try to convince the others their race is balanced, I just said that the other two races definitely do, and I definitely don't.
I didn't say it, but I thought it, so you were right in the end.
Edit: lol that's a bit convoluted.
tl;dr; you're right, I'm a bad man, I made an overgeneralization.
Onto more interesting topics, do you think that even if the game was balanced, we would notice it? I guess what I'm asking myself here is, what would be the criteria to determine that the game is indeed balanced? I think we have a plethora of criteria to say that the game isn't balanced, but it's not easy to define perfect balance. Is it just the absence of imbalance? Is it counteracting imbalances? Does some kind of "X is strong early game, Y is strong late game" suffice?
I mean, in this thread I'm sure people even talked about balance in mirror matchups, which I find a bit ridiculous in the grand scheme of things, but whatever. This tells me that people won't ever be satisfied with the game balance, so we have to rely on it being fun to play first and foremost and give up this idea of competitve eSportS level of game with different races. This shit won't ever be balanced anyway. Give everyone the same super cool and interesting race, and watch the ultimate test of skill unfold before your eyes. Balance is when all sides whine equally. Imbalance is when one side says "the game is fine". xD
Edit: In the end we can always complain how badly protoss is designed.
|
On October 16 2014 10:34 Tuczniak wrote:
Edit: In the end we can always complain how badly protoss is designed.
The truth. "mech is not viable" or "corruptor is bad" is always in debate as well.
As a protoss I think mines make frontal push harder to defend since the zealots meat shield is more vulnerable. The trend of building cannons instead of zealots is already happening. You see players use zealots offensively or against small drops.
That is not to say mines are imbalanced. Just a design problem very similar to the WoL PvZ. You rarely see terran win beyond 4 bases. And if the game reach that far there will be some (partial) base trade guaranteed. So the Terran's strategy becomes:
+ Show Spoiler + 0. Don't die to protoss bullshit. 1. Win before 4th CC or at least get an advantage before protoss can be safe on 3 bases, use any means possible as the cost/supply efficiency of terran composition will only goes down. Widow mine make those pushes stronger either directly or indirectly (scv pulls). 2. If 1 didn't happen channel the inner polt and start partial base trade since no amount of zealots can defend 2+ medivacs and templars are really slow. It terran don't do this the endless zealots will wear the terran down (which is the only efficient use of zealots at this point) . (In frontal engagements zealots are still viable just less cost efficient.) 3. Pray to taeja for emps.
This is amusingly similar to WoL PvZ. + Show Spoiler +The protoss has to defend all sorts of pre-wired attacks (0) while prepare a 2-3 base timing (1). Drop zealots to snipe tech buildings since brood lords are slow(2). Pray your mothership do not get neural parasites and lands right vortex (3).
Yeah win rates are 50/50.
Now the solution. There has been quite a few good games where protoss starts to made carriers and tempests. I personally believe this is the final protoss transition though few have the luxury to attempt it. Similarly terran needs a more approachable answer.
+ Show Spoiler +
1.Reduce carrier build time to 103~110 seconds (currently 120). For comparison a colossus takes a mere 75 seconds to build and cost 200 gas. Carriers cost 250 gas each and should take only 93.75 seconds based solely on gas timing. 103 seconds should ward off "enjoy coca cola".
2.Reduce ghost mineral cost to 125 (currently 200), gas cost to 125 (currently 100). Smaller collision radius for thors (more thors for same amount of space) . Move size radius remain same (same amount of lings to surround). Siege tank gas cost reduced to 100. (this is to balance mech ghost costs)
Intended effects:
+ Show Spoiler +With cheaper ghost terran can more easily produce ghost in late game to screen for the vikings. Less ghost during mid game lest sacrifice upgrades. Tempest/Carrier is more easily transitioned into to ward off ghost/vikings without being vulnerable to other terran units. Marines will be supply inefficient as game reach later stages. Ghosts are woefully low in dps prompt terran to hopefully build non-marine anti-ship units.
Protoss will try to build tempest or carriers after colossus templar transition. Terran will build Ravens and cattlebruiser maybe emergency mines and thors.
Side effects:
+ Show Spoiler +In TvZ the terran can build more ghost in later game? Thor pushes are stronger since more thors in same spaces? Thor pushes weaker because banelings gets more thors due to Thor clump? Cheaper tanks making bum rushes?
In PvZ we see carrier rush?
How this is related to the original problem? Terran can possibly go to late game with less reliance on timings albeit they still exist.
|
I think a lot of people need to take a step back here. These posts are making the current state of the game sound a lot worse than it really is.
Seriously, have you guys even seen the current winrates and racial distribution?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3pbIXM9.png)
Yes, Terran has been winning an abnormal number of tournaments. No, the game is not nearly as imbalanced as people are making it out to be. In fact, outside of tourament semis/finals the game is looking the best it ever has.
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race
Nothing makes me laugh harder than when a person proclaims they are going to stop playing until Blizz releases a patch. I'll let you in on a secret, you are going to be waiting for a long time.
Last time we played this game Protoss won 7 consecutive tournaments, had >55% wr for multiple time periods, and achieved more than double the mirror matchup frequency of the other races. Terran has yet to accomplish even a single of of those feats.
I mean seriously, we haven't even had a foreigner Terran beat a top korean yet. That is like the litmus test of race OPness.
|
On October 16 2014 13:42 r691175002 wrote:I think a lot of people need to take a step back here. These posts are making the current state of the game sound a lot worse than it really is. Seriously, have you guys even seen the current winrates and racial distribution? Yes, Terran has been winning an abnormal number of tournaments. No, the game is not nearly as imbalanced as people are making it out to be. In fact, outside of tourament semis/finals the game is looking the best it ever has. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceNothing makes me laugh harder than when a person proclaims they are going to stop playing until Blizz releases a patch. I'll let you in on a secret, you are going to be waiting for a long time. Last time we played this game Protoss won 7 consecutive tournaments, had >55% wr for multiple time periods, and achieved more than double the mirror matchup frequency of the other races. Terran has yet to accomplish even a single of of those feats. I mean seriously, we haven't even had a foreigner Terran beat a top korean yet. That is like the litmus test of race OPness.
Are there non-bunny foreign terrans left?
|
On October 16 2014 13:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2014 13:42 r691175002 wrote:I think a lot of people need to take a step back here. These posts are making the current state of the game sound a lot worse than it really is. Seriously, have you guys even seen the current winrates and racial distribution? Yes, Terran has been winning an abnormal number of tournaments. No, the game is not nearly as imbalanced as people are making it out to be. In fact, outside of tourament semis/finals the game is looking the best it ever has. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceNothing makes me laugh harder than when a person proclaims they are going to stop playing until Blizz releases a patch. I'll let you in on a secret, you are going to be waiting for a long time. Last time we played this game Protoss won 7 consecutive tournaments, had >55% wr for multiple time periods, and achieved more than double the mirror matchup frequency of the other races. Terran has yet to accomplish even a single of of those feats. I mean seriously, we haven't even had a foreigner Terran beat a top korean yet. That is like the litmus test of race OPness. Are there non-bunny foreign terrans left?
The non-bunny 6 in EU Premier (so 7 in total).
The non-bunny 4 in AM Premier.
Like the EU quarterfinalist Happy, Major who tore through Nations cup, Dayshi who is currently a little bit slumping but has been on the verge of doing what Bunny does currently for a long time (e.g. 3rd place in the last HSC).
|
On October 16 2014 13:42 r691175002 wrote:I think a lot of people need to take a step back here. These posts are making the current state of the game sound a lot worse than it really is. Seriously, have you guys even seen the current winrates and racial distribution? Yes, Terran has been winning an abnormal number of tournaments. No, the game is not nearly as imbalanced as people are making it out to be. In fact, outside of tourament semis/finals the game is looking the best it ever has. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceNothing makes me laugh harder than when a person proclaims they are going to stop playing until Blizz releases a patch. I'll let you in on a secret, you are going to be waiting for a long time. Last time we played this game Protoss won 7 consecutive tournaments, had >55% wr for multiple time periods, and achieved more than double the mirror matchup frequency of the other races. Terran has yet to accomplish even a single of of those feats. I mean seriously, we haven't even had a foreigner Terran beat a top korean yet. That is like the litmus test of race OPness.
Can we please stop focusing on Terran so much? Please. You can still make chargelots. Terran still usually tries to mass doom drop, while they rely on prayers being answered. Terran probably should beat Zerg, but w/e. Blatant imbalance is always ignored due to everyones fascination with Terran being OP or UP. P vs Z is complete trash. The numbers could be 30% in P vs Z and everyone would completely ignore the MU to focus on something at 50%. It's stupid. I don't know why everyone has blinders on or why Zerg is exempt from OP conversations in regards to Toss but clearly they are.
|
On October 16 2014 14:59 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2014 13:42 r691175002 wrote:I think a lot of people need to take a step back here. These posts are making the current state of the game sound a lot worse than it really is. Seriously, have you guys even seen the current winrates and racial distribution? Yes, Terran has been winning an abnormal number of tournaments. No, the game is not nearly as imbalanced as people are making it out to be. In fact, outside of tourament semis/finals the game is looking the best it ever has. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/raceNothing makes me laugh harder than when a person proclaims they are going to stop playing until Blizz releases a patch. I'll let you in on a secret, you are going to be waiting for a long time. Last time we played this game Protoss won 7 consecutive tournaments, had >55% wr for multiple time periods, and achieved more than double the mirror matchup frequency of the other races. Terran has yet to accomplish even a single of of those feats. I mean seriously, we haven't even had a foreigner Terran beat a top korean yet. That is like the litmus test of race OPness. Can we please stop focusing on Terran so much? Please. You can still make chargelots. Terran still usually tries to mass doom drop, while they rely on prayers being answered. Terran probably should beat Zerg, but w/e. Blatant imbalance is always ignored due to everyones fascination with Terran being OP or UP. P vs Z is complete trash. The numbers could be 30% in P vs Z and everyone would completely ignore the MU to focus on something at 50%. It's stupid. I don't know why everyone has blinders on or why Zerg is exempt from OP conversations in regards to Toss but clearly they are.
Yeah. 14%,21% and 25% winrate for Zerg in the last challenger leagues are far too much. Only when Zergs stop qualifying for Premier Leagues PvZ will be balanced.
|
On October 16 2014 09:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2014 09:28 ZenithM wrote:
I'll cordially admit that Terran is possibly the strongest race right now. So I won't bother with trying to cordially pass my race off as balanced like most Zerg and Protoss like to do and instead I'll say this: he's right, Terran is strong, whoopty doo, it will probably patched after 2-3 major tournament wins.
If I was really honest and well intentioned, I'd go beg the battle.net threads for a nerf to my race, but I find that counter-productive, so I'll just abuse it for as long as I can and answer to snarky comments with snarky comments of my own. Nah, blizz is much lazier now a days. Remember it would take them one MVP game to decide to nerf bat Terran? Did they patch when terrains took over gomtvt? Nope. MVP uses ghosts vs Zerg? Patch. Thorazine uses Thors? Patch. Protoss loses to Protoss? Patch. Now they wait until multiple tournament wins before even discussing that something is wrong. Blizzard be some lazy fucks.
Its better this way o_O, when the games was completely broken, they could just nerf hammer anything they wanted, then they decided "the game is probably almost done with the patches" (yes during BLinfestor XD). Anyway, now the game IS in a much better state of balance and nerfs and buffs should be done carefully, altough they are slow but not really careful atm.
edit: Is that so? PvZ is broken? wow tell what is going wrong.
|
On October 16 2014 10:16 ZenithM wrote:
Onto more interesting topics, do you think that even if the game was balanced, we would notice it? I guess what I'm asking myself here is, what would be the criteria to determine that the game is indeed balanced? I think we have a plethora of criteria to say that the game isn't balanced, but it's not easy to define perfect balance. Is it just the absence of imbalance? Is it counteracting imbalances? Does some kind of "X is strong early game, Y is strong late game" suffice?
I mean, in this thread I'm sure people even talked about balance in mirror matchups, which I find a bit ridiculous in the grand scheme of things, but whatever. This tells me that people won't ever be satisfied with the game balance, so we have to rely on it being fun to play first and foremost and give up this idea of competitve eSportS level of game with different races. This shit won't ever be balanced anyway. Give everyone the same super cool and interesting race, and watch the ultimate test of skill unfold before your eyes.
For me personally, an indication of balance would be if a single person is able ti dominate for a long period of time. Every other sport has that - either a player or a team that is just plain better than everyone else. I don't know about other games since I don't watch them, but for example in Dota Vigi Gaming has been absolutely dominating for months now.
|
On October 16 2014 10:16 ZenithM wrote:
Onto more interesting topics, do you think that even if the game was balanced, we would notice it? I guess what I'm asking myself here is, what would be the criteria to determine that the game is indeed balanced? I think we have a plethora of criteria to say that the game isn't balanced, but it's not easy to define perfect balance. Is it just the absence of imbalance? Is it counteracting imbalances? Does some kind of "X is strong early game, Y is strong late game" suffice?
I mean, in this thread I'm sure people even talked about balance in mirror matchups, which I find a bit ridiculous in the grand scheme of things, but whatever. This tells me that people won't ever be satisfied with the game balance, so we have to rely on it being fun to play first and foremost and give up this idea of competitve eSportS level of game with different races. This shit won't ever be balanced anyway. Give everyone the same super cool and interesting race, and watch the ultimate test of skill unfold before your eyes.
I think we are all very critical and the amount of statistics we have at our disposal makes it very hard to keep a clear view at what is actually happening.
That's why I believe we have to keep the greater picture in mind when talking balance. Like, we currently see some Zergs objectively struggling to beat 4M pushes. But we see the potential for Zergs to improve right now, imo.
It's not like in the days of Broodlord/Infestor when towards the late 2012 we actually were seeing that getting the Vikings out in numbers against the broodlords was very unreliable, even if you tried to blindcounter it (which was unreliable again, because despite popular opinions, Zergs were actually not just rushing BL/Infestor but could very well play Ultraliskbased before going BLs).
I think it's very hard to not get sidetracked by all sorts of stuff. Everyone gets easily caught in gameplay discussions about what is strong currently. And then there might be an according winrate - or a winrate that tells the opposite and it kind of comes down to taste what you actually believe a balanced game should look like.
But speaking statistics now, I think we have to accept that a balanced game doesn't mean all winrate statistics 50+/-2% and all race statistics 30+/-3%. There is a certain natural variation and on top of it a metagame and people's natural preferences and one or two stats will always be off - often even greatly.
Personally, I think that we can somewhat regard the game currently balanced. All races seem to have room to improve and are capable of winning tournaments. The chances may not be the same, but they are good enough so that it happens.
|
To me, the game is actually in its best moment since the infamous BL/Infestor era. I know that what I'm writing will be absolutely useless but, who cares.
Terrans are now the strongest, and according to aligulac, protoss the weakest. It's not an unbalanced state still, every race can win, it's just a little more difficult to protoss to do, but it's ok. What I don't get are all those posts with requests for zerg buffs, TL has always been a zerg biased community, even with BL/Infestor it was common to read something like "Yes, infestors are strong but.. but.. protoss OP".
We have to wait a lot for the next patch, because it isn't needed at all. The game in its current state is ok, wait at least until someone will develop some broken strat, this community is never happy
|
'but is it fun'
To me this meta isnt fun, so why would i play?
Terran QQ won.
|
On October 16 2014 18:38 FrozenProbe wrote:
To me, the game is actually in its best moment since the infamous BL/Infestor era. I know that what I'm writing will be absolutely useless but, who cares.
Terrans are now the strongest, and according to aligulac, protoss the weakest. It's not an unbalanced state still, every race can win, it's just a little more difficult to protoss to do, but it's ok. What I don't get are all those posts with requests for zerg buffs, TL has always been a zerg biased community, even with BL/Infestor it was common to read something like "Yes, infestors are strong but.. but.. protoss OP".
We have to wait a lot for the next patch, because it isn't needed at all. The game in its current state is ok, wait at least until someone will develop some broken strat, this community is never happy
What a bullshit, all I read was terran whine the last few months.
The thing is the game wasn't broken before the last patch and they made major balance changes anyway, Which is just stupid.
Zerg is barely winning anything WCS related since HoTS release, yet blizzard's focus has all been on terran and protoss this expansion.
Not that I care that much about it, but the game is becoming very stale. boring and is becoming really unfun to play from a Zerg perspective, and when blizzard isn't giving us any love it's very frustrating.
|
Disclaimer, I think PvT is currently balanced. There is plenty of room for improvement for Protoss players, and I think that if we micro'ed as well as certain terrans do, we would be able to perform well at any level.
Did anyone else perceive PvT to be particularily imbalanced in WoL? I felt that it was really balanced back then, towards the end. Yet, when HotS came out it felt like Terran core composition benefitted a lot more than Protoss core. The biggest additions to the Terran arsenal was the Widow Mine and Medivac Boost. One offers excellent area control and mobile depth of defense, and the other offers mobility.
The biggest addition to Protoss was the MsC and Oracle. The MsC is quite clear. It gives a counterweight to Terran's heightened tempo. It was also meant to give Protoss a tool for aggression->Recall. In addition, it was meant to give us the ability to be more greedy, but it seems like it has not had that affect, because we usually go 3-gate robo anyway, which was exactly what we did in WoL. And then the oracle, the oracle is certainly a strong unit, but it's very costly, and difficult to incorporate into the core. People are very hyped about good revelation use, but to be honest, a lot of the information can be attained with other means of scouting, like observers, phoenix and aggressive movement, all which is more accessible than oracles.
One thing I think is true, is that protoss was given a "death timer" unit in the Tempest. But leading up to that, it seems like the race has become relatively less impressive than their Terran counterpart. I always joke about Terran having so many freakin zealot counters. I mean, mass zealot wasn't really that big of a deal against a good number of ghosts and marines in WoL, With perfect or adequate ghost micro, you could emp all storms and melt the Zealots with stimmed marines. Blue flame hellions were also quite effective. Now they have widow mines and hellbats in addition. But it's ok, because it's not like Terran needs anti-armour, because of how nice the marauders and vikings are.
That being said, microing bio has always demanded more than micro'ing respective compositions from the other races, so maybe it is fair, that the widow mine was introduced, a unit that makes it slightly easier to win fights as terran. However, in WoL, this prevalence of winning the majority of fights against Terran was ingrained in the game and the gameflow. Terran didn't see less success just because they won less fights, rather, it made their decisions about unit allocations more critical. Terran composition has become more competitive in all fights, but they haven't really taken a huge loss in terms how their backbone function. Getting Widow Mines isn't a huge investment, compared to if a Zerg would incorporate casters or swarm hosts, or Protoss pushing both their tech lines. It's true that cost should be proportional to efficiency, but does people really think that Widow Mines are fairly priced? Especially zergs have reason to think that they're not, costs practically the same as a baneling, but can possibly take out 5-10.
I still don't think that the imbalance is that serious, I think it could be fixed with larger maps, with tight cores. But again, that takes away from the game, as it limits early-game plays, probably not for protoss as much as it does for zerg and terran.
I think the issue is not that the peak strength of races are imbalanced, I don't think they are. But rather that the versatility of Terran core makes it so attractive over any other option that Terran has. And that makes it harder to incorporate strategic diversity for other races, especially Protoss. I love that zerg has a couple of roach builds that can rustle some Terran feathers, I wish we had the same stuff. There's a strange thing that Terran's core is so good, that if they face an all-in, it is more likely that they lost due to deviating, than if they stuck to powering their core. Usually, one has to deviate from the core in order to hold off all-ins, e.g. siege tanks vs. roaches. In PvT, it seems like the best thing at holding off harass, all-ins is some combination of well upgraded bio and bunkers and scv's repairing them. And then it translates perfectly to an all-purpose army. Stuff like Combined Mech upgrades and increased Siege Tank attack speed are insane. But nobody really gives a damn, because Mech still stinks next to Bio.
TL:DR; Is Terran imbalanced? Who knows, but it can't be denied that it is more fun to play from a Terran perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
