|
On October 17 2011 07:23 positron. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 19:34 Cyro wrote:On October 15 2011 17:36 positron. wrote:On October 15 2011 17:06 neoghaleon55 wrote:
I'm no game designer but maybe....just maybe....requiring 100 gas to make an orbital would solve everything....
That is exactly why you are not and will never be a game designer. 100 gas for OC? where would you get that amount of gas in the early game? There is no CB and no larva for Terran. It would mean they will be behind in worker count until that first 100 gas. In all honesty, do terrans NEED mules as early as 15 supply? When all 3 races hit approximatly 20 supply, terran takes the economy lead by a large stretch and is able to maintain it all game. If terran economy was cut in half, you could still survive any sub-8 minute timing attack using marines, bunkers, scv's and stutter step micro. That is not the case for zerg, who would just outright die. Mules need to be in the game to balance out the lack of chrono boost, larvae inject and scv building time, but 270 minerals per mule? I personally think that if that value was halved, terrans would still win an awful lot. It would be far from game breaking. Then adjust the effectiveness of the MULE itself rather than require 100 gas for OC.
I agree with this
I find that the Mule gets out of hand when there is multiple OC, when terran is on the gold base, or when the terran is doing an SCV all-in (and has mules to supplement for lack of SCV mining)
I think that in the early game, the mule just makes up for the fact that terran must take an SCV off minerals in order to build something.
I think the solution (and I do beleive the mule is a problem in its current state) should have something to do with making it so that mules dont stack on top of SCV when mining (for fully saturated bases), and that they pull too much from a gold base (I think they should pull same amount from gold as they do from blue).
Adding 100 gas to the cost reduces effectiveness of mule in early game (when it is not as much of an issue), and is of little consequence in late game when mule is a problem.
My biggest problems with mules is that when I see terran take a gold base.. i get an army big enough to kill a PF and their army is out of position enough for me to make a play against a PF, 75% of the minerals have already been taken from that gold base and I will lose more taking out the gold base than the terran has left to mine from it.
|
On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:35 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 03:23 Techno wrote:Strangely, ladder Protoss are doing just fine in North America. According to sc2 ranks.With Masters Protoss actually having a higher win rate then Terrans and Diamond Terrans having the least average points. We all knew this, though. This is merely evidence of what any educated SC2 community members know: Terran translates skill into effectiveness. No skill, no Terran. Thats why its hard to balance Terran. In fact, you cant balance Terran against Protoss right now in the way many people wish they could. Nerf ghosts? What happens to all the diamond and masters Terrans? Personally, Im fine with Terran sucking dick in all leagues except the highest (just like BW!), but its naive to say that Blizzard is stupid for not nerfing Terran. They want people to watch the game, but they make money by people buying the game and playing it. So in reality, they want it balanced at all levels. This is what I've been talking about for months, but people just counter with the "balanced at the highest level" mantra. Even then, however, most people don't think through their solutions anyways. Things like nerfing MULEs so they can't be called down all at once is much more likely to hurt lower level players than higher. A lot of these solutions pop up and garner at least minor support and repetition in the community, and they're really nothing more than shallow nerfs which would only increase the base skill needed to be successful with Terran. As for a problem I see: Problem: Sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers, making all-ins even stronger Solution: Don't allow forcefields castable on non-Protoss structures Side effects: Possible offensive building placement and reduction in sentry effectiveness offensively, specifically sentry drops and use in all-ins It's such a weird thing to me, the failure of Terran in Diamond and Masters. I mean, you can probably win more than 50% of your games with 1 base all-ins and gimmicky crap in TvT. Hell, you can easily clock a good winrate in TvP with just 1/1/1. Terran advantages translate awesomely into the Bo1 aspect of the ladder. For the life of me, I can't understand why they fail so much. It's not like you need insane multitasking to win with Terran at a Masters level. Maybe it's because TvZ is actually difficult without good mechanics and marine micro? Zerg is the most popular race at that level after all. About the Sentry suggestion - are you actually saying that Protoss all-ins are too good against Terran?
It is a fallacy that people hold against Terran:
Masters and Diamond Terrans are simply worse than there Protoss and Zerg counter parts and thats why they are underrepresented and have a smaller win rate, but GM Protoss and Zergs are not worse than there Terran counter parts, in fact, they are likely better, since GM Terrans are only GM because of the strength of the mule and the marine etc.
I will say this Protoss all in all in is too strong vs Terran.
It's not like you need insane multitasking to win with Terran at a Masters level.
If you want to play standard I think this is the most likely scenario. You said yourself you cannot imagine a different reason, then you lay this one down. While the multitasking required isnt insane, it is significant.
|
On October 17 2011 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 02:48 kofman wrote:On October 16 2011 16:19 shadowboxer wrote:On October 16 2011 15:52 kofman wrote:On October 15 2011 19:32 Brotocol wrote:On October 15 2011 19:25 Toadvine wrote:On October 15 2011 18:43 ChristianS wrote:On October 15 2011 15:42 kofman wrote:
TvZ is balanced, the only reason why people are suddenly complaining about it is the GSL graph. However, if you actually play the MU, I think you would find that its probably the best MU in the game, both in terms of balance and gameplay. One mistake for either side could cost you the game; having a bad engagement as zerg, or getting caught unseiged as terran. It's pretty ridiculous how much people read into just a number. Remember, Nestea lost to the the best player in the world, MVP, 3-2. It could have gone either way. This. Blizzard did a poll a while back about people's favorite matchups to watch. All the mirror match-ups were in last, with PvP at 1%. TvP was the least favorite of the other match-ups, then PvZ, and ZvT was easily on top with like 33% of the total vote. Metagames shift. Look at winrates for Brood War in TvZ, and you'll see massive "imbalances" in the direction of one race, then the other for long periods of time. But between when Terran was winning constantly and when Zerg was winning constantly, the game wasn't patched to fix balance. People just figured out new strategies and the other race needed a while to figure out a response. Indeed, there were long periods of time in BW, where Terran was dominating TvZ, and long periods of time where Zerg was winning more. Now, show me a period of time where either Protoss or Zerg dominated Terran in SC2. The only time Protoss was notably ahead in PvT (at like 55% or somesuch), they instantly got KA removed, which was a huge gamechanging nerf. What's even funnier, judging by current Terran play, KA could easily be reintroduced back into the game without making PvT imbalanced. So yeah, David Kim (and the legion of Terran players whining about KA on forums) clearly don't believe in the BW doctrine of "letting it work itself out".I'd actually prefer to have Protoss and Zerg staight-up buffed for the time being. And even though I do believe Terran is by far the best-designed race, I don't necessarily think they should be looked up to as an good example to follow. Some aspects of Terran - like Salvage or MULEs - are just stupid, and would make the game worse even if it was balanced. @bolded part: exactly! That's where most of the whining comes from imo. Only with Terran does Blizzard err on the side of "letting it work itself out." Meanwhile, benign rushes like blink rush (which is a huge risk) get nerfed to the ground. I keep saying it, because I find it ridiculous. 30 seconds is way, way too huge a nerf. That's half a minute nerf on a build that wasn't even a problem! Have you seen the list of Protoss nerfs since beta? They're huge. You've got values like "30 seconds" being thrown around. Protoss as a race was practically butchered, with entire things being removed straight up (Flux Vanes, KA). And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz. Even the absolute earliest beta complaint from Protoss was deemed metagame. Gateway units get creamed by rax units. The complaints fell on deaf ears. This resulted in using FF to survive on 1 base and get colossus asap. The very foundations of Protoss play are based on this lopsided consideration from Blizzard. LOL, you are complaining about the toss nerfs, while terran has definetly been nerfed the most: - bunker build time increase -reaper build time increase - seige tank damage nerf - rax build time increase - stim research time increase - hellion nerf - ghost nerf - bunker salvage decrease Terran's been nerfed the most and they're STILL the strongest race of the three. That says a lot. This could be evidence that Terran players are just stronger than players of the other races. Actually it can't, but it can be evidence that they haven't been nerfed enough. Take two units that are equal in all areas (health, range, speed, attack speed, etc.) except one deals 10 damage per shot and the other deals 4 per shot. The one dealing 10 damage will win every time. Then the one dealing 10 damage gets nerfed once to deal only 8 damage. It still wins. Then it gets nerfed again to deal only 6 damage. Holy crap, it got nerfed twice! Isn't that enough already? No, it needs to get nerfed a third time to make the two units equal- 4 damage per shot for each unit. Or the weaker unit could get buffed so that both units deal 6 damage per shot. Regardless of the number of nerfs, Terran is still clearly stronger. The quality of the nerfs obviously wasn't severe enough.
Regardless of the quality of nerfs to other races, zerg is clearly the most powerful race, because of the unparallel scouting/map control abilities and humongous mining/eco advantage.
|
I love balance discussions...the level of idiotic talk in these thread is quite enjoyable
User was banned for this post.
|
On October 17 2011 07:50 VPVash wrote:
I love balance discussions...the level of idiotic talk in these thread is quite enjoyable
Please enlighten us, at least we pretend to contribute something.
|
On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:35 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 03:23 Techno wrote:Strangely, ladder Protoss are doing just fine in North America. According to sc2 ranks.With Masters Protoss actually having a higher win rate then Terrans and Diamond Terrans having the least average points. We all knew this, though. This is merely evidence of what any educated SC2 community members know: Terran translates skill into effectiveness. No skill, no Terran. Thats why its hard to balance Terran. In fact, you cant balance Terran against Protoss right now in the way many people wish they could. Nerf ghosts? What happens to all the diamond and masters Terrans? Personally, Im fine with Terran sucking dick in all leagues except the highest (just like BW!), but its naive to say that Blizzard is stupid for not nerfing Terran. They want people to watch the game, but they make money by people buying the game and playing it. So in reality, they want it balanced at all levels. This is what I've been talking about for months, but people just counter with the "balanced at the highest level" mantra. Even then, however, most people don't think through their solutions anyways. Things like nerfing MULEs so they can't be called down all at once is much more likely to hurt lower level players than higher. A lot of these solutions pop up and garner at least minor support and repetition in the community, and they're really nothing more than shallow nerfs which would only increase the base skill needed to be successful with Terran. As for a problem I see: Problem: Sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers, making all-ins even stronger Solution: Don't allow forcefields castable on non-Protoss structures Side effects: Possible offensive building placement and reduction in sentry effectiveness offensively, specifically sentry drops and use in all-ins It's such a weird thing to me, the failure of Terran in Diamond and Masters. I mean, you can probably win more than 50% of your games with 1 base all-ins and gimmicky crap in TvT. Hell, you can easily clock a good winrate in TvP with just 1/1/1. Terran advantages translate awesomely into the Bo1 aspect of the ladder.
Perhaps most people at that level have no interest in cheesing every game for ladder points?
|
On October 17 2011 08:33 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:On October 17 2011 05:35 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 03:23 Techno wrote:Strangely, ladder Protoss are doing just fine in North America. According to sc2 ranks.With Masters Protoss actually having a higher win rate then Terrans and Diamond Terrans having the least average points. We all knew this, though. This is merely evidence of what any educated SC2 community members know: Terran translates skill into effectiveness. No skill, no Terran. Thats why its hard to balance Terran. In fact, you cant balance Terran against Protoss right now in the way many people wish they could. Nerf ghosts? What happens to all the diamond and masters Terrans? Personally, Im fine with Terran sucking dick in all leagues except the highest (just like BW!), but its naive to say that Blizzard is stupid for not nerfing Terran. They want people to watch the game, but they make money by people buying the game and playing it. So in reality, they want it balanced at all levels. This is what I've been talking about for months, but people just counter with the "balanced at the highest level" mantra. Even then, however, most people don't think through their solutions anyways. Things like nerfing MULEs so they can't be called down all at once is much more likely to hurt lower level players than higher. A lot of these solutions pop up and garner at least minor support and repetition in the community, and they're really nothing more than shallow nerfs which would only increase the base skill needed to be successful with Terran. As for a problem I see: Problem: Sentries nullify the defensive advantage of bunkers, making all-ins even stronger Solution: Don't allow forcefields castable on non-Protoss structures Side effects: Possible offensive building placement and reduction in sentry effectiveness offensively, specifically sentry drops and use in all-ins It's such a weird thing to me, the failure of Terran in Diamond and Masters. I mean, you can probably win more than 50% of your games with 1 base all-ins and gimmicky crap in TvT. Hell, you can easily clock a good winrate in TvP with just 1/1/1. Terran advantages translate awesomely into the Bo1 aspect of the ladder. Perhaps most people at that level have no interest in cheesing every game for ladder points?
some ppl like to macro
|
On October 17 2011 07:50 VPVash wrote:
I love balance discussions...the level of idiotic talk in these thread is quite enjoyable
User was banned for this post.
This is by far the most accurate statement made in this entire thread.
|
On October 17 2011 06:51 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:35 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 06:24 Toadvine wrote:On October 17 2011 06:03 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:
About the Sentry suggestion - are you actually saying that Protoss all-ins are too good against Terran? Hongun is arguably only in Code S because of Protoss all-ins against Terran. He wins even when Terran knows they're coming... I see your HongUnPrime, and raise you a PuMa. Honestly though, like 1/3rd of the Terrans in Code S are only capable of 1 base all-ining in TvP. And HongUn doesn't even do all-ins with mass Sentries, he's more of a "2-3Gate VR, and maybe win, if not do as much damage as possible, and transition" guy. He's also in the Up/Down matches, not in Code S. You said all-in. MC does sentry all-ins quite a bit, and is quite successful with them. If he didn't go making things hard for himself by willingly putting himself into the hardest group in Code S, we'd likely see him in GSL still. MC does sentry TIMING PUSHES quite a bit. All-in is like a 4gate or an Xgate with no economy. MC consistently makes scary pushes, but doesn't very often actually all-in. There is normally at least some economy behind it.
Yea, this is fair, timing pushes that are as effective as all-is. That's the problem with Protoss which nobody wants to talk about or deal with because in ONE single tournament they can't get their damn act together.
|
On October 17 2011 07:40 Techno wrote:I will say this Protoss all in all in is too strong vs Terran.
So what would you say about this build in comparison to the 1/1/1? I know that it's kind of the annoying blotch in your worldview for how the matchup works.
I'd say it's not even close, just because it's far more transparent.
I'm still willing to hear your opinions on robust strategies to do against 1/1/1 and it's lookalikes, too!
|
On October 17 2011 06:01 Roxy wrote:
Problem:
Mass SCV repair is able to give insane amounts of life to different buildings (specifically the planetary fortress)
Solution:
1 SCV should repair a building at a speed equal to the time it would take to build it
(example. If it takes 60 seconds to repair a building, and it is at 50% life. 1 scv should take 30 seconds to repair it)
Each additional SCV should repair at 75% the speed of the last one attached.
Side Effects: You cant put a disgusting amount of SCV on a PF or Thor and repair indefinitely
Side Effect: TvP has 0% winrate because 4 gate will always win
|
On October 17 2011 09:04 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:01 Roxy wrote:
Problem:
Mass SCV repair is able to give insane amounts of life to different buildings (specifically the planetary fortress)
Solution:
1 SCV should repair a building at a speed equal to the time it would take to build it
(example. If it takes 60 seconds to repair a building, and it is at 50% life. 1 scv should take 30 seconds to repair it)
Each additional SCV should repair at 75% the speed of the last one attached.
Side Effects: You cant put a disgusting amount of SCV on a PF or Thor and repair indefinitely Side Effect: TvP has 0% winrate because 4 gate will always win
That is a very bold statement that I find hard to beleive
4 gate is not really a viable strategy in TvP and it really doesnt have too much to do with the repair mechanism.
Defending could easily be supplemented with more units instead of cutting units to get an even further SCV advantage.
4gate is easily scoutable (your first clue is lack of a second nexus.. and you have scan).
In small armies, MM wrecks protoss and the only way you would lose to 4gate is if you are going to fast expand and tech at the same time (obviously an incorrect response to seeing a 4gate)
|
On October 17 2011 09:10 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:04 SolidMoose wrote:On October 17 2011 06:01 Roxy wrote:
Problem:
Mass SCV repair is able to give insane amounts of life to different buildings (specifically the planetary fortress)
Solution:
1 SCV should repair a building at a speed equal to the time it would take to build it
(example. If it takes 60 seconds to repair a building, and it is at 50% life. 1 scv should take 30 seconds to repair it)
Each additional SCV should repair at 75% the speed of the last one attached.
Side Effects: You cant put a disgusting amount of SCV on a PF or Thor and repair indefinitely Side Effect: TvP has 0% winrate because 4 gate will always win That is a very bold statement that I find hard to beleive 4 gate is not really a viable strategy in TvP and it really doesnt have too much to do with the repair mechanism. Defending could easily be supplemented with more units instead of cutting units to get an even further SCV advantage. 4gate is easily scoutable (your first clue is lack of a second nexus.. and you have scan). In small armies, MM wrecks protoss and the only way you would lose to 4gate is if you are going to fast expand and tech at the same time (obviously an incorrect response to seeing a 4gate)
First of all, a 4gate hits at a time where you can't count a lack of nexus as an an all-in, and early MM needs its upgrades to deal with a protoss bio force, and while terran bio works pretty well against protoss gateway units in small numbers, the point of a 4gate is to not have small numbers.
|
Side Effect: TvP has 0% winrate because 4 gate will always win
Protoss usually just FFs the bunkers so it doesn't matter how fast the SCVs that can't repair them could repair them if they could... which they can't.
|
Watching the MLG games, it's quite obvious that Hongun is pretty bad. Massing carriers against Idra when he could've done much better going VR/Colossi, in a game he had well already lost but still had a chance with deathball turtle style.
Point is, is that THIS is someone who makes up a large percentage of the Protoss w/l in the GSL and TLPD statistics. THIS is the person who fell from Code S, and then we heard a bunch of crying about how Protoss is suffering against Zerg.
;/
|
When it comes to mules all I remember is a game on Tal'darim Altar. Idra vs Puma
Idra had about 73 drones and Puma had about 38 SCV's and Puma's income was higher about 150-200 purely through mules
That just seemed wrong in every sense of the word.
|
Terran Metagame: Race Design
Most times I watch SC2 (Warning: primarily a BW fan!) I come away thinking "marines are absurd". Of course, this isn't significantly different from BW, where medarine smashes anything that doesn't do terrible terrible damage, but my gut feel is that the "basic" marine has been effectively buffed in SC2. On top of that Medivacs confer advantages the medic/dropship split prevented and combat shield buffs marine HP further.
Especially after watching Idra vs Bomber game one in MLG, though, I am thinking the new marine design is also reflective of a changed emphasis in the Terran racial "pattern". In BW, Terran is designed as the mid-level/adaptable race. Thanks to tanks/bunkers/turrets, they also ended up as the best turtle race... but in SC2, that turtle/survivability thing is an emphasis. Essentially all the major changes have added to that side of Terran: the PF, the mule, combat shields, the medivac, salvage. Even minor things like the new supply depot clearly add to Terran's walling capability. The thor is another tough unit.
Would this bug me as much if I'd never seen BroodWar? BW Terran is the race where if both players are barely hanging on, "oh well he'll turtle up and win". Watching SC2 Terran defenses shred any attack that's not done perfectly, seemingly even when heavily outnumbered, gives me that feeling times about 10. Canata would have a field day.
I don't think – yet – that this indicates actual imbalance. But I think it might explain why, for instance, the GSL has turned into a Terran stagnation for right now: SC2's Terran's advantages are the most obvious to exploit. In a tight game the fact that Terran is now designed (either intentionally or by accident) for survival above all else means that we shouldn't be surprised to see a scene, well versed in RTS ideas but still inexperienced with this particular game, dominated by the race that's easiest to keep alive. While the comparison is horrendously inexact since 1999 had no idea what macro is or what an RTS metagame looks like, a parallel to early Protoss dominance in BW, mainly on the basis of their tough units (and 200+ damage storm!), seems plausible.
Counterpoint: of course, the foreign scene hasn't shown anything like the same reduction to a single dominant race. But I don't know how much weight this carries since I think it can be explained fairly easily by two factors: 1) less practice time -> less "perfect" play, and 2) far more active players -> more pressure to innovate + more unique styles.
So why do I think this doesn't actually indicate imbalance? The first is simply the foreign experience. The second is that we've still got two expansions coming, each of which will presumably focus on the two races which aren't Terran. The third is the number of innovations still happening in Brood War. And the last: Protoss is still the "easy race" in BW for beginners, with people's view of "C Terran/B Protoss" for iCCup being a notorious stereotype. Five years, maybe Terran's the "easy race" in SC2, but it's anybody's guess whether that will have any weight at the pro level.
|
On October 16 2011 22:02 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 19:29 robinroz wrote:
Problem: Protoss needs to be able to scout better in the early game. Hallucination is a nice option but it costs 100/100 and precious early-game Sentry energy.
Solution: Move Hallucination to the Nexus.
Side Effects: Another early scouting option (makes 1-1-1 easier to hold!). Also gives another use to Nexus energy instead of pure chronoboost, consequently adding a decision-making aspect.
Still doesn't solve the problem of forcing the Protoss to go robo-tech for detection, but a step in the right direction? Side effect: Disruption of probe production I see that as a problem, That's one of the reason for the unpopularity of Motherships, How do you address that?
Sorry for not including that as a side effect, my bad. It only disrupts chronoboost, though, so you might not be able to produce probes faster, but you still can, unlike in the case of the Mothership. Some people have also suggested moving the Observer to the Nexus (unlocked by Robo) but THAT would disrupt probe production more so than this.
|
Adding a gas requirement for the orbital command would lead to Terran players having to make a decision between going for a fast 2-rax pressure and forego early economy or to get faster gas to tech up or build economy. Currently the 2-rax pressure vs Zerg is seriously too high a reward for too little risk.
The final gas cost shouldn't be argued about (and personally I think 100 might be too high). The idea is to make Terrans choose between early aggression or tech + economy.
|
On October 17 2011 08:58 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:51 SeaSwift wrote:On October 17 2011 06:35 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 06:24 Toadvine wrote:On October 17 2011 06:03 aksfjh wrote:On October 17 2011 05:47 Toadvine wrote:
About the Sentry suggestion - are you actually saying that Protoss all-ins are too good against Terran? Hongun is arguably only in Code S because of Protoss all-ins against Terran. He wins even when Terran knows they're coming... I see your HongUnPrime, and raise you a PuMa. Honestly though, like 1/3rd of the Terrans in Code S are only capable of 1 base all-ining in TvP. And HongUn doesn't even do all-ins with mass Sentries, he's more of a "2-3Gate VR, and maybe win, if not do as much damage as possible, and transition" guy. He's also in the Up/Down matches, not in Code S. You said all-in. MC does sentry all-ins quite a bit, and is quite successful with them. If he didn't go making things hard for himself by willingly putting himself into the hardest group in Code S, we'd likely see him in GSL still. MC does sentry TIMING PUSHES quite a bit. All-in is like a 4gate or an Xgate with no economy. MC consistently makes scary pushes, but doesn't very often actually all-in. There is normally at least some economy behind it. Yea, this is fair, timing pushes that are as effective as all-is. That's the problem with Protoss which nobody wants to talk about or deal with because in ONE single tournament they can't get their damn act together.
I can't believe you're attributing this to Protoss. Protoss actually takes a hit when a P push is thwarted.
That's actually a major problem with Terran... Terran all-ins with SCVs brought off the line aren't even all in because of mules. If you've been paying attention, like, at all, the problem with Terran pseudo-all-ins is that you can thwart them against all odds, but the Terran just does a second and even a third push and then wins the game.
edit: regarding mules... I'd like to point your attention to this post at the top of page 140:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255254¤tpage=140
How can anyone argue that this is fair/balanced?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
