| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
It's simple: Nerf mines, Buff tanks. Some suggestion there. Mines: - 40+40 damage until 1 or 1.25 range - 20+20 damage until 1.75 range. Tanks: - Splash zone of 25% buffed to be a 33% zone. This means that the outer zone damage would be around 11-12, making this splash zone much more dependant on tank upgrade to be efficient against zerlings and banes. Zerg armor and health regeneration would make numbers tighter. | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
He was clearly devastated by this loss and he hasn't played at his normal level since then, making poor decisions, failing all-ins, and throwing games he would have normally won. I mean he should have wrecked Taeja's 11/11 opening, but instead, after having done the hardest part (defending the initial push) a terrible over extension cost him a queen and pack of zergling he had no reason to loose. And that was the first of a lot of move that were far from being soO-esque. His loss against Taeja is not a balance issue, the guy needs to take a rest with firends and family, clear his mind and come back stronger in 2015. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
On November 03 2014 06:44 JCoto wrote: The clear problem there with TvZ is mines. WTF, Widow Mines have a miracle splash. 2 Lucky shots, and it's all pure cost efficiency. Bio does the rest in the case mines weren't cost efficient enough. MMM plus hellbats.. Tell if Zerg can stand efficient against that armies. It's simple: Nerf mines, Buff tanks. Some suggestion there. Mines: - 40+40 damage until 1 or 1.25 range - 20+20 damage until 1.75 range. Tanks: - Splash zone of 25% buffed to be a 33% zone. This means that the outer zone damage would be around 11-12, making this splash zone much more dependant on tank upgrade to be efficient against zerlings and banes. Zerg armor and health regeneration would make numbers tighter. You're not quite understanding the point here, I think : 1 - tanks are shit against ling bane muta, and will always be as long as muta have their HotS regen. Muta dart in, snipe tanks, run away, regen, rinse and repeat until there is not tank left. The DPS of the tanks can't change anything to this. Instead, if you buff their DPS you will end up creating imbalance for other match up, and make mech too stong in many situations... 2 - mines don't do that much, really, against good zergs, watch the games again, look at every fight and see how many units they actually kill. The big change in last patch was the Thor buff, which allows terran to kill mutas before their number become out of control. Big numbers of muta was the fear of every terrans in late game, they would come in their base and snipe everything, snipe every medivac, kill mines before they can detonate, and so on... and now tell me : when was the last time you saw 35+ mutas in a pro ZvT? | ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On November 03 2014 07:19 Gwavajuice wrote: 1 - tanks are shit against ling bane muta, and will always be as long as muta have their HotS regen. So... remove the regen? | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On November 03 2014 07:19 Gwavajuice wrote: You're not quite understanding the point here, I think : 1 - tanks are shit against ling bane muta, and will always be as long as muta have their HotS regen. Muta dart in, snipe tanks, run away, regen, rinse and repeat until there is not tank left. The DPS of the tanks can't change anything to this. Instead, if you buff their DPS you will end up creating imbalance for other match up, and make mech too stong in many situations... 2 - mines don't do that much, really, against good zergs, watch the games again, look at every fight and see how many units they actually kill. The big change in last patch was the Thor buff, which allows terran to kill mutas before their number become out of control. Big numbers of muta was the fear of every terrans in late game, they would come in their base and snipe everything, snipe every medivac, kill mines before they can detonate, and so on... and now tell me : when was the last time you saw 35+ mutas in a pro ZvT? Mmmm... even if I admit that what you've said is somewhat true, looking at the last 3 months of pro sc2 TvZ show that basically 15:00-16:00 MMMMH timings destroy zergs. The 3 buffs that the terran have had (mine buff, hellbat, thor AI) have contributed to the actual [i]delicate[/i] state of the matchup. Winrates of that strategy are pretty high. The thor change affects lategame, but not really midgame THAT much. However, I have to disagree with this: 2 - mines don't do that much, really, against good zergs, watch the games again, look at every fight and see how many units they actually kill. That's not true. 1-shot instakilling banelings in a 1,75 aoE (storm range) make a 4-6 minefield completely cost effective and a really big counter to the main counter the Zerg has against bio. This is SC2 and not BW, so units clump a lot and a mine kills a lot in one shot. And a mine, which has the cost of 1 baneling and 1 zerling, almost always kills 4-7 units in the typical skirmishes we see in MMMMH play. If we look at replays, 4-6 mines can easily destroy a third of a heavy ling bane army at minute 15, and friendly fire for the Terran is heavily mitigated by the healing from the medivac. Also, marines, mines and turrets counter pretty well the muta harassment, so mutas are not played so often. The Thors now have simply become the hardcounter on the field. Nerfing splash from the mine so it doesn't autokill banes in the whole (that's the imporant word) range is not a crazy idea. And if you make basic math, increasing the splash damage from 25% to 33% basically adds 2-3 points of damage from splash in that range (0.78-1.25). Please argumentate how this couldn't help against ling bane armies, and how much inbalanced could be as the Widow mine got a +20 damage in the 1.25-1.75 range. What is more inbalanced? The point of this change is to increase tank-mine synergy and tank efficiency while nerfing the insane mine. Tanks work bad in low numbers, however with 3 on the field things are better, but even with that yes, it's true they suck agaisnt ling bane. Now we can look at this calculations for tank splash against ling/bane. Damage from 0/0 tanks in the 25% splash zone: 8.75. -4 shots of this splash are needed to kill a 0/0 baneling. 4/5 to kill a 0/1 baneling due to health regeneration. -5 shots of this splash are needed to kill a 0/0 zergling. 5 to kill a 0/1 zergling We have to think that numbers get worse if tank numbers are low, as between shots zerg can regen 0.75 HP. Little retreats make the units able to soak one more splash impact in that zone. With mech upgrades usually started before +2 on bio, zergs can go for +2 armor and numbers get even worse, which is fine for balance but makes the tanks obsolete as mines deal always spell damage and 1-shot kill. Damage from 0/0 tanks in the 0.78-1.25 in the 25% zone is upgraded to 33,33%: 11.66. 11.55 if 33%. - 3 shots of this splash are needed to kill a 0/0 baneling. 3/4 to kill a 0/1 baneling if we count on health regeneration. One more if 0/2 is done. - 4 shots of this splash are needed to kill 0/0 zergling. Same for 0/1. 5 for 0/2 zerglings. So yes, a so little buff to the tank could change A LOT their splash damage efficiency for engaging lingbane armies, making their splash kill with one shot less. And one shot from a tank takes long, very long. That time is simply gold in TvZ. Also, 1 mine shot + 1 tank splash damage for the exterior range would kill banes really efficiently, stimulating shooting micro, which is something that Widow Mines don't favor. Now I would like to see your numbers about how a change like this to the tank is irrelevant in the ZvT lingbane. Having an autokill mine which will always lands a killer shot if the zerg engages is more balanced? +20 damage in an splash zone is more balanced than +3? Widow mines are supposed to be for defense, so for help and not to wreck. Numbers show that is not neglectable. And the game has shown that minefield is a doom for banes, which are hardly cost efficient naturally. Not even close to half efficient than a Widow mine and they cost almost the same. If you want to mantain the mine efficient in the air, make it have separate splashes (yes, the mine splash affects ground and air at the same time, which is not a very good or balanced decision) and have a ground damage which doesn't autokill banes and lings for the whole range and 40 damage for the mutas if that matters that much. If you think in TvP and TvT balance, 3 points of damage from splash are not going to make tanks much more efficient. In TvP, immortals, blink, chargelots and air destroy tanks and mech in general. Buffing the splash of the tank by an 8% is not going to create inbalance at all in the matchup but maybe some more viability to tanks (which could be really nice in fact). In mirror matches, balance is not really considered a problem, and +3 damage in splash against marines, taking in account health regeneration, is not going to be the end of the world. Maybe if we think about tank lines, some more splash could be the only thing that could be a bit more affected. | ||
|
Dwayn
Germany949 Posts
| ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
On November 03 2014 08:29 Dwayn wrote: They should start off by increasing the rax build time by 5s and the bunker by 10s. This would nerf the 2 rax, which has like a 90% win rate. It would also make it a little harder for terran to hold against all ins, which is far too easy right now. Beyond that zerg needs a non projectile range unit against PDD, I'd say the hydra. Unfortunately blizzard sucks at balancing. Maybe you should wait till christmes to adress these "balance changes". | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
But the kind of rash patchy kind of fixes are what got us to where we are right now. I think more games need to be played out so that Blizzard can implement something that is sensible and helps Zerg vs T without affecting the other MUs too much. | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
On November 03 2014 08:37 DinoMight wrote: Blizzard policy is to wait, wait, wait and then buff/nerf several things at once. After that they are being surprised they overdid it. For example terran now, ghost, infestor before.It's clear that Terran is too strong vs. Zerg at the moment. But the kind of rash patchy kind of fixes are what got us to where we are right now. I think more games need to be played out so that Blizzard can implement something that is sensible and helps Zerg vs T without affecting the other MUs too much. | ||
|
Terence Chill
Germany112 Posts
On November 03 2014 08:37 DinoMight wrote: It's clear that Terran is too strong vs. Zerg at the moment. But the kind of rash patchy kind of fixes are what got us to where we are right now. I think more games need to be played out so that Blizzard can implement something that is sensible and helps Zerg vs T without affecting the other MUs too much. i think blizzard needs to care first | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11913 Posts
On November 03 2014 08:37 DinoMight wrote: It's clear that Terran is too strong vs. Zerg at the moment. But the kind of rash patchy kind of fixes are what got us to where we are right now. I think more games need to be played out so that Blizzard can implement something that is sensible and helps Zerg vs T without affecting the other MUs too much. I'm pretty sure whoever said 'let's see the map pool for 2015' was the smartest of us all. | ||
|
sage_francis
France1823 Posts
On November 03 2014 06:41 inken wrote: So now it's become a discussion on one single match? People who can't play nearly as good as soO and Taeja, drawing conclusions and analyzing what the very best of the pros should have and could have done better. Seriously!?!?! This is all this thread is about bro ^^ No wonder why absolutely no pros/semi pros are never posting in it. Its a huge joke. Just lurk time to time to have a good laugh on how hard it is to micro tempest and other BS. | ||
|
LSN
Germany696 Posts
The problems of SC2 will always stay the same tho: 1. It is a hard counter fest without many choices and the whole thing has its origin in bio and it's required hard counters from the other races. SC2 is stuck on bio and ways to deal with it in ZvT and PvT since 4 years. 2. Terran and Zerg have reversed roles in the metagame to what would actually fit. Terran has all the perfect defensive tools such as bunkers, planetary fortress, mines, tanks etc. but is the race that is being played offensively in TvZ. Zerg has mobility and the ability to expand quickly but is being played defensively. This metagame just doesn't fit the respective races and therefore is screwed, generally speaking. The terran throws waves of units at the zerg in order to not let it grow too strong. This should be exactly the other way round. Zergs should have to throw units in order to not let terran grow up. Terran tier 3 units (mech ground + air) and the time that is needed to reproduce them would fit much better to a slow (and slowly reproducing) but strong superior endgame army. A race like zerg that can move, expand and produce quickly should never have the role of being a strong endgame race (right now it has lost this in TvZ anyway, but that is not important). This automatically creates the imbalances that we have seen in the past in terms of zergs endgame dominance. To address this, bio needs to get limited and be given more holes that must be filled with mech unit transitions (siege tanks instead of marauders vs armored for example). Terran lategame needs to get alot stronger (BC, tanks, ...) but its midgame (all 80% bio compositions) weaker. The removal of the marauder serves this purpose and is a good thing to start it off with for legacy of the void. This is just the big picture without going into any details like PDD or muta regen or whatever else. SC2 is kind of in its beta still. At least if blizzard manages to fix stuff that is described in this post. If not, I don't see how stale bio matchups (bio vs baneling, bio vs colossi, "yawn") could continue to attract players and audience in the future. It has become more like a headache. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 03 2014 05:23 Pursuit_ wrote: Attacking from one angle off creep without even trying to denote widow mines first and having your whole army clumped up can definitely give you some bad engagements. But soO was definitely still in the game at that point, he had a pretty strong economy still and a bigger bank, just didn't take his gas in the northern bases so he was gas starved. Even his bank at 6k / 2k was too mineral heavy. Remaxing on ultras was a mistake, but even then it was his horrible use of them (a move into kiting bio off creep from one angle with nothing to lock them in place) that put him behind. Even just sending 3 to the north first to pick off planetary's would have been better. Yeah. Thing is that on Nimbus in those positions it's not like you could flank a lot or engage at a better position. The map is terribly easy to defend 5bases on for Terran in those spawns. You eventually have to force a fight and it's not like soO did only try once and failed he poked alot before and got reasonable trades before with similar moves. It's just way harder for the Zerg to take a good engagement than for the Terran when the map forces you to headbang into semichocked areas. The gas thing is one factor that soO is already much better at than other zergs. Most zergs build gasbanks in the lategame and then run out of minerals and cant rebuild the drones/hatches they lose to drops in such very long games. In my opinion it's a very good bank for vs bio, because it is enough gas to replace one army while minerals make you flexible. Mutas and infestors are the last things you replace (or should lose to begin with) and ling/bling/ultra is kind of 2-3:1 mineral:gas. The Ultra remax was bad but that was just a consequence of losing the combat. If he builds lings they are going to get raped when streaming in and before morphing to banes. Which leaves ultras as your only unit with reasonable upgrades. It's bad but the best decision in a shitty situation after that horrible engagement when you have to remax on something to hold that counterpush. | ||
|
Satan Battles
4 Posts
1. Terran favored maps 2. Maps with no advantage to either race There is no map in the pool that one can say "Oh Zerg has an advantage going into this because of way this map is laid out." There are, however, maps that give Terrans advantages, like the easy 4th base on Deadwing, or the spam drop natural in Nimbus. Blizzard either needs to add maps that give Zerg some pre-determined advantage, or make sure maps don't allow Terran to expand like crazy or exploit drop spots that force trades in favor of Terran. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
another idea is that scvs building bunkers would always slide on the outskirts of the bunker so drones could always attack them | ||
|
PinheadXXXXXX
United States897 Posts
On November 03 2014 08:14 JCoto wrote: Mmmm... even if I admit that what you've said is somewhat true, looking at the last 3 months of pro sc2 TvZ show that basically 15:00-16:00 MMMMH timings destroy zergs. The 3 buffs that the terran have had (mine buff, hellbat, thor AI) have contributed to the actual [i]delicate[/i] state of the matchup. Winrates of that strategy are pretty high. The thor change affects lategame, but not really midgame THAT much. However, I have to disagree with this: 2 - mines don't do that much, really, against good zergs, watch the games again, look at every fight and see how many units they actually kill. That's not true. 1-shot instakilling banelings in a 1,75 aoE (storm range) make a 4-6 minefield completely cost effective and a really big counter to the main counter the Zerg has against bio. This is SC2 and not BW, so units clump a lot and a mine kills a lot in one shot. And a mine, which has the cost of 1 baneling and 1 zerling, almost always kills 4-7 units in the typical skirmishes we see in MMMMH play. If we look at replays, 4-6 mines can easily destroy a third of a heavy ling bane army at minute 15, and friendly fire for the Terran is heavily mitigated by the healing from the medivac. Also, marines, mines and turrets counter pretty well the muta harassment, so mutas are not played so often. The Thors now have simply become the hardcounter on the field. Nerfing splash from the mine so it doesn't autokill banes in the whole (that's the imporant word) range is not a crazy idea. And if you make basic math, increasing the splash damage from 25% to 33% basically adds 2-3 points of damage from splash in that range (0.78-1.25). Please argumentate how this couldn't help against ling bane armies, and how much inbalanced could be as the Widow mine got a +20 damage in the 1.25-1.75 range. What is more inbalanced? The point of this change is to increase tank-mine synergy and tank efficiency while nerfing the insane mine. Tanks work bad in low numbers, however with 3 on the field things are better, but even with that yes, it's true they suck agaisnt ling bane. Now we can look at this calculations for tank splash against ling/bane. Damage from 0/0 tanks in the 25% splash zone: 8.75. -4 shots of this splash are needed to kill a 0/0 baneling. 4/5 to kill a 0/1 baneling due to health regeneration. -5 shots of this splash are needed to kill a 0/0 zergling. 5 to kill a 0/1 zergling We have to think that numbers get worse if tank numbers are low, as between shots zerg can regen 0.75 HP. Little retreats make the units able to soak one more splash impact in that zone. With mech upgrades usually started before +2 on bio, zergs can go for +2 armor and numbers get even worse, which is fine for balance but makes the tanks obsolete as mines deal always spell damage and 1-shot kill. Damage from 0/0 tanks in the 0.78-1.25 in the 25% zone is upgraded to 33,33%: 11.66. 11.55 if 33%. - 3 shots of this splash are needed to kill a 0/0 baneling. 3/4 to kill a 0/1 baneling if we count on health regeneration. One more if 0/2 is done. - 4 shots of this splash are needed to kill 0/0 zergling. Same for 0/1. 5 for 0/2 zerglings. So yes, a so little buff to the tank could change A LOT their splash damage efficiency for engaging lingbane armies, making their splash kill with one shot less. And one shot from a tank takes long, very long. That time is simply gold in TvZ. Also, 1 mine shot + 1 tank splash damage for the exterior range would kill banes really efficiently, stimulating shooting micro, which is something that Widow Mines don't favor. Now I would like to see your numbers about how a change like this to the tank is irrelevant in the ZvT lingbane. Having an autokill mine which will always lands a killer shot if the zerg engages is more balanced? +20 damage in an splash zone is more balanced than +3? Widow mines are supposed to be for defense, so for help and not to wreck. Numbers show that is not neglectable. And the game has shown that minefield is a doom for banes, which are hardly cost efficient naturally. Not even close to half efficient than a Widow mine and they cost almost the same. If you want to mantain the mine efficient in the air, make it have separate splashes (yes, the mine splash affects ground and air at the same time, which is not a very good or balanced decision) and have a ground damage which doesn't autokill banes and lings for the whole range and 40 damage for the mutas if that matters that much. If you think in TvP and TvT balance, 3 points of damage from splash are not going to make tanks much more efficient. In TvP, immortals, blink, chargelots and air destroy tanks and mech in general. Buffing the splash of the tank by an 8% is not going to create inbalance at all in the matchup but maybe some more viability to tanks (which could be really nice in fact). In mirror matches, balance is not really considered a problem, and +3 damage in splash against marines, taking in account health regeneration, is not going to be the end of the world. Maybe if we think about tank lines, some more splash could be the only thing that could be a bit more affected. The point isn't the mathematical damage, the point is that tanks don't synergize with bio and are often picked off before the fight by mutas, and they never get more than 2-3 shots off during a fight anyway because bio needs to split back and away. Tanks are not viable with the current compositions from Zerg in TvZ unless Terran stays defended by turrets (i.e. turtlemech.) It's not their damage that's the problem, it's the way they work in the matchup. And little changes to the tank do matter in TvT. Bio, which is already quite difficult to play vs solid mech, could become completely phased out and the matchup would consist only of mech vs. mech. | ||
|
10bulgares
352 Posts
On November 03 2014 06:54 Grumbels wrote: I think it's difficult to tell who the top players for each race are currently. soO, Jaedong and Life can be almost like an embarrassment to zerg at times with the way they throw games or with the odd decisions they make. Mechanically they're very strong, but that's not always enough. For terran there are so many on-form players it's difficult to tell too. My point is there could be a reason we see those type of crumbling players only or mostly with zerg players (how many come backs from terran players and how many from zerg players?). It would be because managing an end game situation with zergs is much more demanding than terrans. Injects and creep spread and rally points become more painful to manage in the end game where you have bases everywhere (which implies among other things that there are a lot more points where you can be attacked especially by the extremely mobile bio force). I don't think there is the same difficulty for the terran. What makes the terran macro difficult? I¨m not sure (I would say managing add-ons) but I guess it's something that doesn't scale like the zerg macro. The problem with creep in the end game is also big when one considers that when you maneuver those huge end game armies, positioning is extremely important. Zergs basically have creep to manage this while terrans have scans. Scans are much better in the end game with a lot of cc while for some reason zergs have a diffculty to maintain a good creep spread in the end game (queens become very fragile?). | ||
|
10bulgares
352 Posts
On November 03 2014 06:44 JCoto wrote: The clear problem there with TvZ is mines. WTF, Widow Mines have a miracle splash. 2 Lucky shots, and it's all pure cost efficiency. Bio does the rest in the case mines weren't cost efficient enough. MMM plus hellbats.. Tell if Zerg can stand efficient against that armies. It's simple: Nerf mines, Buff tanks. Some suggestion there. Mines: - 40+40 damage until 1 or 1.25 range - 20+20 damage until 1.75 range. Tanks: - Splash zone of 25% buffed to be a 33% zone. This means that the outer zone damage would be around 11-12, making this splash zone much more dependant on tank upgrade to be efficient against zerlings and banes. Zerg armor and health regeneration would make numbers tighter. If the problem is bad engagements in the late game for zerg players, I think what needs to be addressed is some scouting means for the zerg, like a buff for creep tumors: a researchable tech that would increased range of sight of creep tumors doesn't seem stupid to me. Also it must be more easy for zergs to harrass the terran so that the terran army can also be put out of position. Here I would suggest a nerf to the improved building armor. One stuff that could be tested is to make the queens' attack more valuable in the end game, like magical damage that don't care about the upgrades. Queens would be a better asset in fighting drop play even when the zerg player don't have the means to improve the range attack. With more valuable queens, it is not as costly to maintain a number of queens sufficient to keep the creep spread in the end game. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g11225 shahzam794 WinterStarcraft466 Maynarde164 Skadoodle143 ViBE104 SortOf70 UpATreeSC63 SteadfastSC20 |
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
