|
On November 27 2011 18:04 Ziggitz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 17:28 architecture wrote:On November 27 2011 16:45 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 15:24 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 14:24 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 14:03 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 13:59 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 13:47 cive wrote:On November 27 2011 13:04 kappadevin wrote:
Missing an Inject is more punishing than missing a MULE, but that isn't really a balance related issue. At the highest level neither player should be missing either. In a similar way, missing an SCV cycle is more punishing than letting an extra larva spawn before making two drones at once. You can't say that larvae inject is more punishing than MULE because they are different variables. MULE is a gatherer and a product while larvae inject is increasing the production capacity. The consequence of missing an larvae inject is just more visible and obvious than missing a MULE drop. If larvae inject worries people, there are many solutions. One that I use (because I miss injects lol) is getting a macro hatch pre-lair. Missing a MULE drop is pretty much not an issue in the slightest unless you've missed several in row or you're going pure production into an all in with no non unit production costs like upgrades or tech. If you miss a MULE and then drop two at once, then you've still mined the same amount of minerals and your tech is primarily limited by gas. A lot of the time you can miss MULEs with zero consequences. Well, if i was a zerg player, i can also get supply blocked with no consequences since i can just store up larva and then build drones, while protoss and terran miss out on scvs + production when they get supply blocked. Every race have their own unique mechanics i suppose. Not even close to accurate. After Terran and Protoss get enough workers to constantly produce workers from their main structure(i.e. when the game clock hits zero seconds) Their worker production is constant minus the build time of the orbital and taking chrono boosts into account. Meanwhile Zerg can and has to produce workers with as many of their larvae as they can get away with. This also means if you use all 10 larvae per minute on drones from a hatch with a queen, you can spend 500 minerals per minute on drones, which in the early game with 2 hatches and queens means up to 1000 minerals per minute, i.e. all of your early game economy if you can get away with it. Because of this you produce drones to mine minerals to make more drones meaning that any delay at an early stage of drone production has an exponential effect on your economy. Zerg are affected the most by early supply blocks. Even more so if they are a queen short whilst supply blocked as the hatchery that needs that queen will be running at less than half production capacity. But don't the same logic work for terran and protoss? If i miss a mule, it means i may get less money at this point of time --> unable to put down production facilties on time --> overcompensate on production facilities --> lost money? And if terran and zerg has both 15 drones and both get supply blocked for a min. Terran can only produce 1 scv onwards after that while zerg can produce 10 after that. Zerg will thus get more exponentially ahead. I think your just looking at how bad it is to get supply blocked as zerg and deciding on its opportunity costs when you fail to realise that it is even more crucial for other races to not get supply blocked. When Terran and Protoss are building their economy up they need 6 probes or scvs to produce workers constantly without chrono boost from their command center or nexus. Their worker production is constant. If you lose 1 worker you will be one worker down from how many you would normally have until the point at which you have enough workers. If Terran loses 3 scvs they'll be constantly 3 scvs down. If zerg loses 3 drones then by the next production cycle those 3 drones would have mined enough for 2 more drones, now you're 5 drones down, if those now nonexistant 5 drones mined for another 40 second production cycle they'd have mined enough for 3 more drones putting you 8 drones down in just 80 seconds. If you are terran and you lost 3 scvs in the same situation you lost 3 scvs and their worth of mining over those 80 seconds and thats it. Absolutely absurd analysis. People have their reality distortion fields on. Read your argument again, it's completely nonsensical. The only differences are: 1. Drone production is linked to army production, and this is mostly an issue in early game if you take severe drone AND army losses. If you only take 1 type of loss and trade against their army, then you will be mostly OK. If you take army + drone losses, that's game. 2. If Z loses large number of drones late game, say to a storm drop, Z has the option if they are not under pressure to redrone in 30s. P does not have this option. T is OK, if he has enough OCs. You disingenuous prick. You call my argument nonsensical and then fail to quantify any of your points. Perhaps you'd like to quantify what heavy losses would be or how much production in excess Zerg has than is necessary to keep up or when a macro hatch is necessary. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have a fucking clue and you're a complete hypocrite.
Woah, Chill out dude. Let's not start call others by names, instead keep the responses constructive.
On November 27 2011 17:40 DaCruise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 16:00 ZenithM wrote:On November 27 2011 15:40 DaCruise wrote:
Dunno if this has been brought up but I really think its stupid that high templars can feedback Thors and especially bc´s.
I understand that carriers suck but that doesnt mean that bc´s have to suck as well and right now they do and mainly because of feedback.
I hate the fact that 1 small bio unit can instantly take 50% off a bc´s health. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
I play zerg myself so I dont talk from personal experience but I watch A LOT of streams and tournaments and whenever a terran switches to bc´s he loses cause of feedback.
What I would like is for the yamato cannon to come on a cooldown (maybe 1 min?) and ofc to see the energy bar removed from bc´s.
This will in no way break TvP. Blink stalkers are still excellent against bc´s and they are not immune to storms either. Did you know that Stalkers alone are NOT cost efficient against Battlecruisers? 1 BC (400/300) can kill 4 stalkers (500/200) regardless of upgrades (3/3 BC kills 4 3/3/3 stalkers). 1 BC with Yamato can kill 5 stalkers (625/250). And I didn't even factor in a random Raven for PDD or 10 SCVs to repair. Feedback let stalkers be cost efficient against BCs. Just for the sake of comparison, did you know that Marines ARE cost efficient against Carriers? 8 3/3 marines (400/0) can kill 1 3/3/3 full carrier (450/250) I agree that TvP is hard for Terran, but believe me, BCs are not a Terran weakness... In regards to your bc vs stalker comparison I think it sounds pretty fair that 1 bc can kill 4 stalkers as the bc requires more gas. Btw did you factor blink into this. If not then that just makes stalkers that much better. I deliberatly left out ravens and such out of the picture to keep it simple but now that you bring it up templars can feedback the raven and storm the scv´s. As said, I dont play terran or toss but believe me, BC´s are a terran weakness. If that was not the case we would see them be utilized much much more in TvP. SC2 has been out long enough for players to incorperate bc´s in their army if they had any real use but templars with feedback removes that option and as a result terrans stay on tier 1 units all game long.
I don't think the problem lies in feedback, since you can easily just emp your own battlecruisers out of energy with just one ghost. Now what I think the problem is that how long it takes to get battlecruiser and the time you need to get the upgrades for them. Also I am sure they wouldn't work just by themselves either. You would need to add ghost and some marauders too maybe, I don't know what would be the best composition, but in SC2 no unit really works well just by themselves either, no matter how far in the tech tree it is.
Now that I remember there is also the TvP Pure Air strategy in the strategy section that looks really promising way to bring out battlecruisers to the battlefield.
|
On November 27 2011 17:03 k10forgotten wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 16:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 27 2011 16:02 k10forgotten wrote:I'm Terran, and this buff on the upgrade cost for Protoss really intrigued me. First, let me show you the effects of each +1 upgrade on each Terran and Protoss ground unit: TERRAN+ Show Spoiler [BIO] +- Marine: +1 damage (+16%)
- Marauder: +1 damage (+10%/+5% vs armored)
- Reaper (pistols): +1 damage (x2) (+25%/+12% vs light)
- Reaper (grenade): +3 vs buildings (+10% vs buildings)
- Ghost: +1 damage (+10%/+5% vs light)
- Hellion: +1 damage (+12%/+9% vs light)
- Tank: +2 damage (+13%/+8% vs armored)
- Tank (sieged): +3 damage (+8%/+6% vs armored)
- Thor (ground): +3 damage (x2) (+10%)
- Thor (air): +1 damage (x4) (+16%)
- Zealot: +1 damage (x2) (+12%)
- Stalker: +1 damage (+10%/+7% vs armored)
- Sentry: +1 damage (+16%)
- Dark Templar: +5 damage (+11%)
- Archon: +3 damage (+12%)
- Immortal: +3 damage (+15%/+6% vs armored)
- Colossus: +2 damage (x2) (+13%)
As we can see, an attack upgrade is better for Protoss overall, if we look to stats only - specially for zealots, dark templars, archons, colossi and immortals. (Well, it's suburb for sentry, but it's DPS is half of theirs...) The attack upgrade is also just as good for marines, reapers(!), unsieged tanks and the Thor's air attack, but those are 2 different types of upgrades - bio and mech.
Let's have a look on the costs to get a +2 upgrade (TvP). I'll assume already built Gateway and Barracks: + Show Spoiler [TERRAN - Bio] +- Engineering Bay: 125/0/-
- +1 Infantry Weapons: 100/100/70s
- Factory: 150/100/-
- Armory: 150/100/-
- +2 Infantry Weapons: 175/175/190s
TOTAL: 700/475/260s (4min 20sec)I didn't count the EBay, Factory and armory build time because the wait for +1 attack is greater, thus I reduced it accordingly. - Factory: 150/100/60s
- Armory: 150/100/65s
- +1 Vehicle Weapons: 100/100/160s
- +2 Vehicle Weapons: 175/175/190s
TOTAL: 575/475/475s (7min 55sec)- Forge: 150/0/-
- +1 Ground Weapons: 100/100/95s
- Cybernetics Core: 150/0/-
- Twilight Council: 150/100/-
- +2 Ground Weapons: 150/150/190s
TOTAL: 700/350/285s (4min 45sec)I didn't count all the Forge, CyCore and Council because the wait for the +1 is greater, thus I reduced it accordingly. Also, I didn't use Chrono Boost. Also, keep in mind that these times are utopic, and do not reflect how it is in game, since it depends on many, many variables. But what can we see from this? - A +1 attack costs: Mech > Protoss > Bio.
- A +2 attack costs more gas to Terran, either if he goes Bio or Mech.
- A +1 mech attack comes too late, if the Protoss isn't sloppy with his upgrades. Theoretically, at the same time Protoss' +2 finishes.
Since going Bio isn't gas heavy, it feels OK to expend 125 more gas on upgrades - but it hurts a lot when you go Mech. Also you need to wait until Armory to get your +1. This delay keeps Terran from using it against Protoss, since he cannot keep up on upgrades if his opponent decides to rush them - specially with Chrono Boost. But this is just one of the things against Mech in TvP. Another factor is that he cannot reinforce just as quickly. Terran needs production capability as the Protoss needs Gateways (if he goes pure mech), which means Factories, Tech Labs and Reactors. This means he needs tons of gas to build structures and more gas to build units. He also needs Planetary Fortresses, which is gas heavy too! All this can be countered by pure Zealots with Charge, which doesn't cost gas at all - neither does the Gateway (I'm not saying it should!). But this is only one of the anti-mech units/abilities Protoss have. Aside this, they've got blink, feedback, hardened shields, graviton beams...
The point I'm trying to make is: Mech is used almost only in TvT. It may appear sometimes in TvZ (and wasn't very effective, until now - but I admit I haven't seen it with a good air support), but never (even Goody stopped using it in this match up) in TvP. Since going Mech is already a gas heavy investment, with a huge delay to get your +1, shouldn't the Mech upgrades cost less gas and/or time? Well first of all, in your damage calculations, I don't think you factored in DPS, which favors Terran more than you're letting on. Second, the upgrades all tend to level out as far as them helping certain groups of units to different extents. For example, a Protoss needs to upgrade both shield and armor to boost all "health", whereas a Terran doesn't... but on the other hand, those Protoss shield and armor upgrades apply to more units. It all evens out for the most part. Third, Terran is by far the least gas-heavy and most cost-efficient race in the game (and Protoss happens to be most gas-heavy, with Zerg right behind them). I don't think buffing Terran upgrade costs (or any other costs for that matter) would make certain unit compositions any better in certain situations. That depends on the metagame, in my opinion... and at this point in time, I don't really see straight-up mech as a viable option (although you can see tanks occasionally complement an army, such as in 1/1/1 builds). The percentage apply to DPS as well, don't worry. And I didn't show the DPS of the units because it's not what upgrades are about - they're to increase the damage, so the way it's increased is what is most important to talk. My point is just that getting just a +1 for Mech happens too late and costs too much, and has less benefits than a +1 Protoss Ground Weapons. And going Mech is gas-heavy. Tanks, Thors, Ravens, Planetaries, Factories, Starports, addons... They're all gas-heavy, aside that there are the upgrades, not only for weapons and armor, but blue flame, +1 range for turrets, +2 armor for buildings, Raven energy, HSM, 250mm... In my opinion, Mech is the most (or at least one of the most) gas-heavy unit compositions - and that doesn't work at TvP! |:
Well I believe I already explained why there's no reason to think those upgrades cost "too much", as the upgrades balance out (see my example about the Protoss health needing double upgrades). Also, if you're looking for race upgrades that don't start until "too late" into the game, you should be focusing much more on Zerg air, rather than Terran or Protoss.
Also, what makes you think that a Terran *should* be able to go *only* mech? As a Protoss, since when can I make *only* stargate units or *only* robo units and skip warpgate, since I'm not making *any* gateway units? I see Terrans assume that they should be able to go strict mech a lot, and I have no idea why they feel they should be able to get away with this. The pre-emptive tunnel vision on a single branch of the tech tree for an entire game is hardly justified, in my opinion. How can you know ahead of time that you won't need to use half your units? (And why wouldn't you want to use ghosts, lol?)
Just because you can posit a silly and unhealthy unit composition doesn't mean you should be able to automatically get away with pulling it off. There are obvious holes with your given army tech, and they've been found and exploited by other races... so you build supporting units to counter it, just like everyone else. If one branch of the tech tree doesn't have those supporting units, then you look at a different branch. It's pretty simple, I think.
In HotS, certain holes in mech will be supposedly filled with new units, so maybe then you'll be able to win with only factory units, if that's really what you want. But as for right now, I wouldn't recommend purposely ignoring most of what Terran has to offer if your opponent starts to counter the three units you happen to be making.
|
On November 27 2011 21:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 17:03 k10forgotten wrote:On November 27 2011 16:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 27 2011 16:02 k10forgotten wrote:I'm Terran, and this buff on the upgrade cost for Protoss really intrigued me. First, let me show you the effects of each +1 upgrade on each Terran and Protoss ground unit: TERRAN+ Show Spoiler [BIO] +- Marine: +1 damage (+16%)
- Marauder: +1 damage (+10%/+5% vs armored)
- Reaper (pistols): +1 damage (x2) (+25%/+12% vs light)
- Reaper (grenade): +3 vs buildings (+10% vs buildings)
- Ghost: +1 damage (+10%/+5% vs light)
- Hellion: +1 damage (+12%/+9% vs light)
- Tank: +2 damage (+13%/+8% vs armored)
- Tank (sieged): +3 damage (+8%/+6% vs armored)
- Thor (ground): +3 damage (x2) (+10%)
- Thor (air): +1 damage (x4) (+16%)
- Zealot: +1 damage (x2) (+12%)
- Stalker: +1 damage (+10%/+7% vs armored)
- Sentry: +1 damage (+16%)
- Dark Templar: +5 damage (+11%)
- Archon: +3 damage (+12%)
- Immortal: +3 damage (+15%/+6% vs armored)
- Colossus: +2 damage (x2) (+13%)
As we can see, an attack upgrade is better for Protoss overall, if we look to stats only - specially for zealots, dark templars, archons, colossi and immortals. (Well, it's suburb for sentry, but it's DPS is half of theirs...) The attack upgrade is also just as good for marines, reapers(!), unsieged tanks and the Thor's air attack, but those are 2 different types of upgrades - bio and mech.
Let's have a look on the costs to get a +2 upgrade (TvP). I'll assume already built Gateway and Barracks: + Show Spoiler [TERRAN - Bio] +- Engineering Bay: 125/0/-
- +1 Infantry Weapons: 100/100/70s
- Factory: 150/100/-
- Armory: 150/100/-
- +2 Infantry Weapons: 175/175/190s
TOTAL: 700/475/260s (4min 20sec)I didn't count the EBay, Factory and armory build time because the wait for +1 attack is greater, thus I reduced it accordingly. - Factory: 150/100/60s
- Armory: 150/100/65s
- +1 Vehicle Weapons: 100/100/160s
- +2 Vehicle Weapons: 175/175/190s
TOTAL: 575/475/475s (7min 55sec)- Forge: 150/0/-
- +1 Ground Weapons: 100/100/95s
- Cybernetics Core: 150/0/-
- Twilight Council: 150/100/-
- +2 Ground Weapons: 150/150/190s
TOTAL: 700/350/285s (4min 45sec)I didn't count all the Forge, CyCore and Council because the wait for the +1 is greater, thus I reduced it accordingly. Also, I didn't use Chrono Boost. Also, keep in mind that these times are utopic, and do not reflect how it is in game, since it depends on many, many variables. But what can we see from this? - A +1 attack costs: Mech > Protoss > Bio.
- A +2 attack costs more gas to Terran, either if he goes Bio or Mech.
- A +1 mech attack comes too late, if the Protoss isn't sloppy with his upgrades. Theoretically, at the same time Protoss' +2 finishes.
Since going Bio isn't gas heavy, it feels OK to expend 125 more gas on upgrades - but it hurts a lot when you go Mech. Also you need to wait until Armory to get your +1. This delay keeps Terran from using it against Protoss, since he cannot keep up on upgrades if his opponent decides to rush them - specially with Chrono Boost. But this is just one of the things against Mech in TvP. Another factor is that he cannot reinforce just as quickly. Terran needs production capability as the Protoss needs Gateways (if he goes pure mech), which means Factories, Tech Labs and Reactors. This means he needs tons of gas to build structures and more gas to build units. He also needs Planetary Fortresses, which is gas heavy too! All this can be countered by pure Zealots with Charge, which doesn't cost gas at all - neither does the Gateway (I'm not saying it should!). But this is only one of the anti-mech units/abilities Protoss have. Aside this, they've got blink, feedback, hardened shields, graviton beams...
The point I'm trying to make is: Mech is used almost only in TvT. It may appear sometimes in TvZ (and wasn't very effective, until now - but I admit I haven't seen it with a good air support), but never (even Goody stopped using it in this match up) in TvP. Since going Mech is already a gas heavy investment, with a huge delay to get your +1, shouldn't the Mech upgrades cost less gas and/or time? Well first of all, in your damage calculations, I don't think you factored in DPS, which favors Terran more than you're letting on. Second, the upgrades all tend to level out as far as them helping certain groups of units to different extents. For example, a Protoss needs to upgrade both shield and armor to boost all "health", whereas a Terran doesn't... but on the other hand, those Protoss shield and armor upgrades apply to more units. It all evens out for the most part. Third, Terran is by far the least gas-heavy and most cost-efficient race in the game (and Protoss happens to be most gas-heavy, with Zerg right behind them). I don't think buffing Terran upgrade costs (or any other costs for that matter) would make certain unit compositions any better in certain situations. That depends on the metagame, in my opinion... and at this point in time, I don't really see straight-up mech as a viable option (although you can see tanks occasionally complement an army, such as in 1/1/1 builds). The percentage apply to DPS as well, don't worry. And I didn't show the DPS of the units because it's not what upgrades are about - they're to increase the damage, so the way it's increased is what is most important to talk. My point is just that getting just a +1 for Mech happens too late and costs too much, and has less benefits than a +1 Protoss Ground Weapons. And going Mech is gas-heavy. Tanks, Thors, Ravens, Planetaries, Factories, Starports, addons... They're all gas-heavy, aside that there are the upgrades, not only for weapons and armor, but blue flame, +1 range for turrets, +2 armor for buildings, Raven energy, HSM, 250mm... In my opinion, Mech is the most (or at least one of the most) gas-heavy unit compositions - and that doesn't work at TvP! |: Well I believe I already explained why there's no reason to think those upgrades cost "too much", as the upgrades balance out (see my example about the Protoss health needing double upgrades). Also, if you're looking for race upgrades that don't start until "too late" into the game, you should be focusing much more on Zerg air, rather than Terran or Protoss. Also, what makes you think that a Terran *should* be able to go *only* mech? As a Protoss, since when can I make *only* stargate units or *only* robo units and skip warpgate, since I'm not making *any* gateway units? I see Terrans assume that they should be able to go strict mech a lot, and I have no idea why they feel they should be able to get away with this. The pre-emptive tunnel vision on a single branch of the tech tree for an entire game is hardly justified, in my opinion. How can you know ahead of time that you won't need to use half your units? (And why wouldn't you want to use ghosts, lol?) Just because you can posit a silly and unhealthy unit composition doesn't mean you should be able to automatically get away with pulling it off. There are obvious holes with your given army tech, and they've been found and exploited by other races... so you build supporting units to counter it, just like everyone else. If one branch of the tech tree doesn't have those supporting units, then you look at a different branch. It's pretty simple, I think. In HotS, certain holes in mech will be supposedly filled with new units, so maybe then you'll be able to win with only factory units, if that's really what you want. But as for right now, I wouldn't recommend purposely ignoring most of what Terran has to offer if your opponent starts to counter the three units you happen to be making.
Ummm... what? Mech doesn't consist of just three units. You can't just go hellion tank thor lmao. You need Vikings, Ravens, Banshees.... and upgrades like cloak/HSM... it's really gas heavy.
Mech players have to realize that they need to build marines. Marines are such a good mineral dump, and really help tank a bit against chargelots so hellions can roast them.
|
On November 27 2011 21:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 17:03 k10forgotten wrote:On November 27 2011 16:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 27 2011 16:02 k10forgotten wrote:I'm Terran, and this buff on the upgrade cost for Protoss really intrigued me. First, let me show you the effects of each +1 upgrade on each Terran and Protoss ground unit: TERRAN+ Show Spoiler [BIO] +- Marine: +1 damage (+16%)
- Marauder: +1 damage (+10%/+5% vs armored)
- Reaper (pistols): +1 damage (x2) (+25%/+12% vs light)
- Reaper (grenade): +3 vs buildings (+10% vs buildings)
- Ghost: +1 damage (+10%/+5% vs light)
- Hellion: +1 damage (+12%/+9% vs light)
- Tank: +2 damage (+13%/+8% vs armored)
- Tank (sieged): +3 damage (+8%/+6% vs armored)
- Thor (ground): +3 damage (x2) (+10%)
- Thor (air): +1 damage (x4) (+16%)
- Zealot: +1 damage (x2) (+12%)
- Stalker: +1 damage (+10%/+7% vs armored)
- Sentry: +1 damage (+16%)
- Dark Templar: +5 damage (+11%)
- Archon: +3 damage (+12%)
- Immortal: +3 damage (+15%/+6% vs armored)
- Colossus: +2 damage (x2) (+13%)
As we can see, an attack upgrade is better for Protoss overall, if we look to stats only - specially for zealots, dark templars, archons, colossi and immortals. (Well, it's suburb for sentry, but it's DPS is half of theirs...) The attack upgrade is also just as good for marines, reapers(!), unsieged tanks and the Thor's air attack, but those are 2 different types of upgrades - bio and mech.
Let's have a look on the costs to get a +2 upgrade (TvP). I'll assume already built Gateway and Barracks: + Show Spoiler [TERRAN - Bio] +- Engineering Bay: 125/0/-
- +1 Infantry Weapons: 100/100/70s
- Factory: 150/100/-
- Armory: 150/100/-
- +2 Infantry Weapons: 175/175/190s
TOTAL: 700/475/260s (4min 20sec)I didn't count the EBay, Factory and armory build time because the wait for +1 attack is greater, thus I reduced it accordingly. - Factory: 150/100/60s
- Armory: 150/100/65s
- +1 Vehicle Weapons: 100/100/160s
- +2 Vehicle Weapons: 175/175/190s
TOTAL: 575/475/475s (7min 55sec)- Forge: 150/0/-
- +1 Ground Weapons: 100/100/95s
- Cybernetics Core: 150/0/-
- Twilight Council: 150/100/-
- +2 Ground Weapons: 150/150/190s
TOTAL: 700/350/285s (4min 45sec)I didn't count all the Forge, CyCore and Council because the wait for the +1 is greater, thus I reduced it accordingly. Also, I didn't use Chrono Boost. Also, keep in mind that these times are utopic, and do not reflect how it is in game, since it depends on many, many variables. But what can we see from this? - A +1 attack costs: Mech > Protoss > Bio.
- A +2 attack costs more gas to Terran, either if he goes Bio or Mech.
- A +1 mech attack comes too late, if the Protoss isn't sloppy with his upgrades. Theoretically, at the same time Protoss' +2 finishes.
Since going Bio isn't gas heavy, it feels OK to expend 125 more gas on upgrades - but it hurts a lot when you go Mech. Also you need to wait until Armory to get your +1. This delay keeps Terran from using it against Protoss, since he cannot keep up on upgrades if his opponent decides to rush them - specially with Chrono Boost. But this is just one of the things against Mech in TvP. Another factor is that he cannot reinforce just as quickly. Terran needs production capability as the Protoss needs Gateways (if he goes pure mech), which means Factories, Tech Labs and Reactors. This means he needs tons of gas to build structures and more gas to build units. He also needs Planetary Fortresses, which is gas heavy too! All this can be countered by pure Zealots with Charge, which doesn't cost gas at all - neither does the Gateway (I'm not saying it should!). But this is only one of the anti-mech units/abilities Protoss have. Aside this, they've got blink, feedback, hardened shields, graviton beams...
The point I'm trying to make is: Mech is used almost only in TvT. It may appear sometimes in TvZ (and wasn't very effective, until now - but I admit I haven't seen it with a good air support), but never (even Goody stopped using it in this match up) in TvP. Since going Mech is already a gas heavy investment, with a huge delay to get your +1, shouldn't the Mech upgrades cost less gas and/or time? Well first of all, in your damage calculations, I don't think you factored in DPS, which favors Terran more than you're letting on. Second, the upgrades all tend to level out as far as them helping certain groups of units to different extents. For example, a Protoss needs to upgrade both shield and armor to boost all "health", whereas a Terran doesn't... but on the other hand, those Protoss shield and armor upgrades apply to more units. It all evens out for the most part. Third, Terran is by far the least gas-heavy and most cost-efficient race in the game (and Protoss happens to be most gas-heavy, with Zerg right behind them). I don't think buffing Terran upgrade costs (or any other costs for that matter) would make certain unit compositions any better in certain situations. That depends on the metagame, in my opinion... and at this point in time, I don't really see straight-up mech as a viable option (although you can see tanks occasionally complement an army, such as in 1/1/1 builds). The percentage apply to DPS as well, don't worry. And I didn't show the DPS of the units because it's not what upgrades are about - they're to increase the damage, so the way it's increased is what is most important to talk. My point is just that getting just a +1 for Mech happens too late and costs too much, and has less benefits than a +1 Protoss Ground Weapons. And going Mech is gas-heavy. Tanks, Thors, Ravens, Planetaries, Factories, Starports, addons... They're all gas-heavy, aside that there are the upgrades, not only for weapons and armor, but blue flame, +1 range for turrets, +2 armor for buildings, Raven energy, HSM, 250mm... In my opinion, Mech is the most (or at least one of the most) gas-heavy unit compositions - and that doesn't work at TvP! |: Well I believe I already explained why there's no reason to think those upgrades cost "too much", as the upgrades balance out (see my example about the Protoss health needing double upgrades). Also, if you're looking for race upgrades that don't start until "too late" into the game, you should be focusing much more on Zerg air, rather than Terran or Protoss. Also, what makes you think that a Terran *should* be able to go *only* mech? As a Protoss, since when can I make *only* stargate units or *only* robo units and skip warpgate, since I'm not making *any* gateway units? I see Terrans assume that they should be able to go strict mech a lot, and I have no idea why they feel they should be able to get away with this. The pre-emptive tunnel vision on a single branch of the tech tree for an entire game is hardly justified, in my opinion. How can you know ahead of time that you won't need to use half your units? (And why wouldn't you want to use ghosts, lol?) Just because you can posit a silly and unhealthy unit composition doesn't mean you should be able to automatically get away with pulling it off. There are obvious holes with your given army tech, and they've been found and exploited by other races... so you build supporting units to counter it, just like everyone else. If one branch of the tech tree doesn't have those supporting units, then you look at a different branch. It's pretty simple, I think. In HotS, certain holes in mech will be supposedly filled with new units, so maybe then you'll be able to literally win with only factory units, if that's really what you want. But as for right now, I wouldn't recommend purposely ignoring most of what Terran has to offer if your opponent starts to counter the three units you happen to be making.
When I'm saying on going mech is obviously with support, and I count air units and ghosts. But certainly there is a reason for not going mech, one of them is the obvious need for gas, for structures and units, while you don't have this need when you go bio (the only gas-heavy units are ghost and medivac, which you don't mass anyway). This means you need more bases than the Protoss - just to keep building Factories and pumping out units - and you really can't be spread, since your army is so immobile.
|
On November 27 2011 18:31 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 18:04 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 17:28 architecture wrote:On November 27 2011 16:45 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 15:24 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 14:24 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 14:03 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 13:59 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 13:47 cive wrote:On November 27 2011 13:04 kappadevin wrote:
Missing an Inject is more punishing than missing a MULE, but that isn't really a balance related issue. At the highest level neither player should be missing either. In a similar way, missing an SCV cycle is more punishing than letting an extra larva spawn before making two drones at once. You can't say that larvae inject is more punishing than MULE because they are different variables. MULE is a gatherer and a product while larvae inject is increasing the production capacity. The consequence of missing an larvae inject is just more visible and obvious than missing a MULE drop. If larvae inject worries people, there are many solutions. One that I use (because I miss injects lol) is getting a macro hatch pre-lair. Missing a MULE drop is pretty much not an issue in the slightest unless you've missed several in row or you're going pure production into an all in with no non unit production costs like upgrades or tech. If you miss a MULE and then drop two at once, then you've still mined the same amount of minerals and your tech is primarily limited by gas. A lot of the time you can miss MULEs with zero consequences. Well, if i was a zerg player, i can also get supply blocked with no consequences since i can just store up larva and then build drones, while protoss and terran miss out on scvs + production when they get supply blocked. Every race have their own unique mechanics i suppose. Not even close to accurate. After Terran and Protoss get enough workers to constantly produce workers from their main structure(i.e. when the game clock hits zero seconds) Their worker production is constant minus the build time of the orbital and taking chrono boosts into account. Meanwhile Zerg can and has to produce workers with as many of their larvae as they can get away with. This also means if you use all 10 larvae per minute on drones from a hatch with a queen, you can spend 500 minerals per minute on drones, which in the early game with 2 hatches and queens means up to 1000 minerals per minute, i.e. all of your early game economy if you can get away with it. Because of this you produce drones to mine minerals to make more drones meaning that any delay at an early stage of drone production has an exponential effect on your economy. Zerg are affected the most by early supply blocks. Even more so if they are a queen short whilst supply blocked as the hatchery that needs that queen will be running at less than half production capacity. But don't the same logic work for terran and protoss? If i miss a mule, it means i may get less money at this point of time --> unable to put down production facilties on time --> overcompensate on production facilities --> lost money? And if terran and zerg has both 15 drones and both get supply blocked for a min. Terran can only produce 1 scv onwards after that while zerg can produce 10 after that. Zerg will thus get more exponentially ahead. I think your just looking at how bad it is to get supply blocked as zerg and deciding on its opportunity costs when you fail to realise that it is even more crucial for other races to not get supply blocked. When Terran and Protoss are building their economy up they need 6 probes or scvs to produce workers constantly without chrono boost from their command center or nexus. Their worker production is constant. If you lose 1 worker you will be one worker down from how many you would normally have until the point at which you have enough workers. If Terran loses 3 scvs they'll be constantly 3 scvs down. If zerg loses 3 drones then by the next production cycle those 3 drones would have mined enough for 2 more drones, now you're 5 drones down, if those now nonexistant 5 drones mined for another 40 second production cycle they'd have mined enough for 3 more drones putting you 8 drones down in just 80 seconds. If you are terran and you lost 3 scvs in the same situation you lost 3 scvs and their worth of mining over those 80 seconds and thats it. Absolutely absurd analysis. People have their reality distortion fields on. Read your argument again, it's completely nonsensical. The only differences are: 1. Drone production is linked to army production, and this is mostly an issue in early game if you take severe drone AND army losses. If you only take 1 type of loss and trade against their army, then you will be mostly OK. If you take army + drone losses, that's game. 2. If Z loses large number of drones late game, say to a storm drop, Z has the option if they are not under pressure to redrone in 30s. P does not have this option. T is OK, if he has enough OCs. You disingenuous prick. You call my argument nonsensical and then fail to quantify any of your points. Perhaps you'd like to quantify what heavy losses would be or how much production in excess Zerg has than is necessary to keep up or when a macro hatch is necessary. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have a fucking clue and you're a complete hypocrite. Woah, Chill out dude. Let's not start call others by names, instead keep the responses constructive.
He's right though.
Missing a MULE doesn't halt your SCV production, while missing an Inject does
|
On November 27 2011 21:44 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 21:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 27 2011 17:03 k10forgotten wrote:On November 27 2011 16:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 27 2011 16:02 k10forgotten wrote:I'm Terran, and this buff on the upgrade cost for Protoss really intrigued me. First, let me show you the effects of each +1 upgrade on each Terran and Protoss ground unit: TERRAN+ Show Spoiler [BIO] +- Marine: +1 damage (+16%)
- Marauder: +1 damage (+10%/+5% vs armored)
- Reaper (pistols): +1 damage (x2) (+25%/+12% vs light)
- Reaper (grenade): +3 vs buildings (+10% vs buildings)
- Ghost: +1 damage (+10%/+5% vs light)
- Hellion: +1 damage (+12%/+9% vs light)
- Tank: +2 damage (+13%/+8% vs armored)
- Tank (sieged): +3 damage (+8%/+6% vs armored)
- Thor (ground): +3 damage (x2) (+10%)
- Thor (air): +1 damage (x4) (+16%)
- Zealot: +1 damage (x2) (+12%)
- Stalker: +1 damage (+10%/+7% vs armored)
- Sentry: +1 damage (+16%)
- Dark Templar: +5 damage (+11%)
- Archon: +3 damage (+12%)
- Immortal: +3 damage (+15%/+6% vs armored)
- Colossus: +2 damage (x2) (+13%)
As we can see, an attack upgrade is better for Protoss overall, if we look to stats only - specially for zealots, dark templars, archons, colossi and immortals. (Well, it's suburb for sentry, but it's DPS is half of theirs...) The attack upgrade is also just as good for marines, reapers(!), unsieged tanks and the Thor's air attack, but those are 2 different types of upgrades - bio and mech.
Let's have a look on the costs to get a +2 upgrade (TvP). I'll assume already built Gateway and Barracks: + Show Spoiler [TERRAN - Bio] +- Engineering Bay: 125/0/-
- +1 Infantry Weapons: 100/100/70s
- Factory: 150/100/-
- Armory: 150/100/-
- +2 Infantry Weapons: 175/175/190s
TOTAL: 700/475/260s (4min 20sec)I didn't count the EBay, Factory and armory build time because the wait for +1 attack is greater, thus I reduced it accordingly. - Factory: 150/100/60s
- Armory: 150/100/65s
- +1 Vehicle Weapons: 100/100/160s
- +2 Vehicle Weapons: 175/175/190s
TOTAL: 575/475/475s (7min 55sec)- Forge: 150/0/-
- +1 Ground Weapons: 100/100/95s
- Cybernetics Core: 150/0/-
- Twilight Council: 150/100/-
- +2 Ground Weapons: 150/150/190s
TOTAL: 700/350/285s (4min 45sec)I didn't count all the Forge, CyCore and Council because the wait for the +1 is greater, thus I reduced it accordingly. Also, I didn't use Chrono Boost. Also, keep in mind that these times are utopic, and do not reflect how it is in game, since it depends on many, many variables. But what can we see from this? - A +1 attack costs: Mech > Protoss > Bio.
- A +2 attack costs more gas to Terran, either if he goes Bio or Mech.
- A +1 mech attack comes too late, if the Protoss isn't sloppy with his upgrades. Theoretically, at the same time Protoss' +2 finishes.
Since going Bio isn't gas heavy, it feels OK to expend 125 more gas on upgrades - but it hurts a lot when you go Mech. Also you need to wait until Armory to get your +1. This delay keeps Terran from using it against Protoss, since he cannot keep up on upgrades if his opponent decides to rush them - specially with Chrono Boost. But this is just one of the things against Mech in TvP. Another factor is that he cannot reinforce just as quickly. Terran needs production capability as the Protoss needs Gateways (if he goes pure mech), which means Factories, Tech Labs and Reactors. This means he needs tons of gas to build structures and more gas to build units. He also needs Planetary Fortresses, which is gas heavy too! All this can be countered by pure Zealots with Charge, which doesn't cost gas at all - neither does the Gateway (I'm not saying it should!). But this is only one of the anti-mech units/abilities Protoss have. Aside this, they've got blink, feedback, hardened shields, graviton beams...
The point I'm trying to make is: Mech is used almost only in TvT. It may appear sometimes in TvZ (and wasn't very effective, until now - but I admit I haven't seen it with a good air support), but never (even Goody stopped using it in this match up) in TvP. Since going Mech is already a gas heavy investment, with a huge delay to get your +1, shouldn't the Mech upgrades cost less gas and/or time? Well first of all, in your damage calculations, I don't think you factored in DPS, which favors Terran more than you're letting on. Second, the upgrades all tend to level out as far as them helping certain groups of units to different extents. For example, a Protoss needs to upgrade both shield and armor to boost all "health", whereas a Terran doesn't... but on the other hand, those Protoss shield and armor upgrades apply to more units. It all evens out for the most part. Third, Terran is by far the least gas-heavy and most cost-efficient race in the game (and Protoss happens to be most gas-heavy, with Zerg right behind them). I don't think buffing Terran upgrade costs (or any other costs for that matter) would make certain unit compositions any better in certain situations. That depends on the metagame, in my opinion... and at this point in time, I don't really see straight-up mech as a viable option (although you can see tanks occasionally complement an army, such as in 1/1/1 builds). The percentage apply to DPS as well, don't worry. And I didn't show the DPS of the units because it's not what upgrades are about - they're to increase the damage, so the way it's increased is what is most important to talk. My point is just that getting just a +1 for Mech happens too late and costs too much, and has less benefits than a +1 Protoss Ground Weapons. And going Mech is gas-heavy. Tanks, Thors, Ravens, Planetaries, Factories, Starports, addons... They're all gas-heavy, aside that there are the upgrades, not only for weapons and armor, but blue flame, +1 range for turrets, +2 armor for buildings, Raven energy, HSM, 250mm... In my opinion, Mech is the most (or at least one of the most) gas-heavy unit compositions - and that doesn't work at TvP! |: Well I believe I already explained why there's no reason to think those upgrades cost "too much", as the upgrades balance out (see my example about the Protoss health needing double upgrades). Also, if you're looking for race upgrades that don't start until "too late" into the game, you should be focusing much more on Zerg air, rather than Terran or Protoss. Also, what makes you think that a Terran *should* be able to go *only* mech? As a Protoss, since when can I make *only* stargate units or *only* robo units and skip warpgate, since I'm not making *any* gateway units? I see Terrans assume that they should be able to go strict mech a lot, and I have no idea why they feel they should be able to get away with this. The pre-emptive tunnel vision on a single branch of the tech tree for an entire game is hardly justified, in my opinion. How can you know ahead of time that you won't need to use half your units? (And why wouldn't you want to use ghosts, lol?) Just because you can posit a silly and unhealthy unit composition doesn't mean you should be able to automatically get away with pulling it off. There are obvious holes with your given army tech, and they've been found and exploited by other races... so you build supporting units to counter it, just like everyone else. If one branch of the tech tree doesn't have those supporting units, then you look at a different branch. It's pretty simple, I think. In HotS, certain holes in mech will be supposedly filled with new units, so maybe then you'll be able to win with only factory units, if that's really what you want. But as for right now, I wouldn't recommend purposely ignoring most of what Terran has to offer if your opponent starts to counter the three units you happen to be making. Ummm... what? Mech doesn't consist of just three units. You can't just go hellion tank thor lmao. You need Vikings, Ravens, Banshees.... and upgrades like cloak/HSM... it's really gas heavy. Mech players have to realize that they need to build marines. Marines are such a good mineral dump, and really help tank a bit against chargelots so hellions can roast them.
I'm sorry dude, but marines don't even tank a "bit." When going mech, I prefer hellions over marines any day. So easy to go for a hellion run by as soon as you see the deathball start to move out..
Not that I go mech much anyway. Bio ball is just next to impossilbe to win with these days against Toss late game. Your micro needs to be near perfect for a direct confrontation.
|
On November 27 2011 23:09 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 18:31 Mehukannu wrote:On November 27 2011 18:04 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 17:28 architecture wrote:On November 27 2011 16:45 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 15:24 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 14:24 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 14:03 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 13:59 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 13:47 cive wrote:
[quote]
You can't say that larvae inject is more punishing than MULE because they are different variables. MULE is a gatherer and a product while larvae inject is increasing the production capacity. The consequence of missing an larvae inject is just more visible and obvious than missing a MULE drop.
If larvae inject worries people, there are many solutions. One that I use (because I miss injects lol) is getting a macro hatch pre-lair. Missing a MULE drop is pretty much not an issue in the slightest unless you've missed several in row or you're going pure production into an all in with no non unit production costs like upgrades or tech. If you miss a MULE and then drop two at once, then you've still mined the same amount of minerals and your tech is primarily limited by gas. A lot of the time you can miss MULEs with zero consequences. Well, if i was a zerg player, i can also get supply blocked with no consequences since i can just store up larva and then build drones, while protoss and terran miss out on scvs + production when they get supply blocked. Every race have their own unique mechanics i suppose. Not even close to accurate. After Terran and Protoss get enough workers to constantly produce workers from their main structure(i.e. when the game clock hits zero seconds) Their worker production is constant minus the build time of the orbital and taking chrono boosts into account. Meanwhile Zerg can and has to produce workers with as many of their larvae as they can get away with. This also means if you use all 10 larvae per minute on drones from a hatch with a queen, you can spend 500 minerals per minute on drones, which in the early game with 2 hatches and queens means up to 1000 minerals per minute, i.e. all of your early game economy if you can get away with it. Because of this you produce drones to mine minerals to make more drones meaning that any delay at an early stage of drone production has an exponential effect on your economy. Zerg are affected the most by early supply blocks. Even more so if they are a queen short whilst supply blocked as the hatchery that needs that queen will be running at less than half production capacity. But don't the same logic work for terran and protoss? If i miss a mule, it means i may get less money at this point of time --> unable to put down production facilties on time --> overcompensate on production facilities --> lost money? And if terran and zerg has both 15 drones and both get supply blocked for a min. Terran can only produce 1 scv onwards after that while zerg can produce 10 after that. Zerg will thus get more exponentially ahead. I think your just looking at how bad it is to get supply blocked as zerg and deciding on its opportunity costs when you fail to realise that it is even more crucial for other races to not get supply blocked. When Terran and Protoss are building their economy up they need 6 probes or scvs to produce workers constantly without chrono boost from their command center or nexus. Their worker production is constant. If you lose 1 worker you will be one worker down from how many you would normally have until the point at which you have enough workers. If Terran loses 3 scvs they'll be constantly 3 scvs down. If zerg loses 3 drones then by the next production cycle those 3 drones would have mined enough for 2 more drones, now you're 5 drones down, if those now nonexistant 5 drones mined for another 40 second production cycle they'd have mined enough for 3 more drones putting you 8 drones down in just 80 seconds. If you are terran and you lost 3 scvs in the same situation you lost 3 scvs and their worth of mining over those 80 seconds and thats it. Absolutely absurd analysis. People have their reality distortion fields on. Read your argument again, it's completely nonsensical. The only differences are: 1. Drone production is linked to army production, and this is mostly an issue in early game if you take severe drone AND army losses. If you only take 1 type of loss and trade against their army, then you will be mostly OK. If you take army + drone losses, that's game. 2. If Z loses large number of drones late game, say to a storm drop, Z has the option if they are not under pressure to redrone in 30s. P does not have this option. T is OK, if he has enough OCs. You disingenuous prick. You call my argument nonsensical and then fail to quantify any of your points. Perhaps you'd like to quantify what heavy losses would be or how much production in excess Zerg has than is necessary to keep up or when a macro hatch is necessary. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have a fucking clue and you're a complete hypocrite. Woah, Chill out dude. Let's not start call others by names, instead keep the responses constructive. He's right though. Missing a MULE doesn't halt your SCV production, while missing an Inject does
True, but it does becomes a non issue when you put down macro hatch which puts you to the same amount of injected larvae you would have been x time ago.
Honestly, I don't feel like we should be even comparing each races macro mechanics, mostly because they all are so much different and give their extra bonuses and drawbacks in different places.
Like for terran MULE's indirectly boost your production through economy by giving you extra minerals to spend.
For zerg it is much more straight forward production boost than it is for protoss or terran, which also saves on macro hatches since you don't have to build so many of them.
Protoss also has really straight forward production boost, but it is much more flexible than it is for the other two races. Meaning that you can use it to boost upgrades or boost your economy or boost your army production.
|
EDIT: If anyone could do me a favour and repost this on the official blizzard sc2 forums in general or where ever I would deeply appreciate it, I cant use their forums at the moment so would be nice if someone could repost for me.
Blizzard brought patch 1.4.2 a couple months back, and things seemed to be going ok for a little while, but as the dust is settling all I can say is that the game is probably more broken then it has ever been. Mid masters toss btw.
PvZ, Now honestly this matchup has been completely in the gutter since the early part of the year with the infestor craze but now its a little bit too much, with the mass muta style on the rise, protoss continually finds itself almost forced into awkward base trade scenarios that it can never win because of mass spine crawler walls that preven the toss from actually getting the zergs base. And the spine crawler wall strat isnt even exclusive to the muta style, practically any style works terrific with it because it nullifies the possibility for protoss to counter attack, or just do a normal attack ever.
The biggest problem I find with this matchup is probably the infestor, I cant believe that people stopped using this thing even after it was only tapped on the head with the lightest nerfs possible, the root on fungal is still rigged, and believe me I use High Templar every single game against zerg without fail and I know for a fact feedback is not a viable solution seeing as how the same range issue that existed during the infestor craze still exists now, and the movement speed issues between the two casters also exist which makes it easier for the faster moving caster (the infestor).
PvT, this matchup is in even a worse state then PvZ, at mid masters I am seeing the most ludacrously simple and yet impossible to defend odd timings that just make no sense at all. The most classic rigged scenario that protoss finds itself in is when terran puts the bulk of its army just outside the natural and drops a couple full medvacs of bio into the protoss main and makes the protoss either choose between keeping his tech alive of his eco alive, either way protoss loses the game.
And no warp in is not a reliable way to defend it because what happens most times to people with good macro is that you use your warp gates whenever possible and then the drops come at the exact worst time when all of your warp gates are on cooldown, and splitting your army is almost a non existent strategy for good reason. How many medvacs are going to be dropped? How many marines or marauders in the drops? These are things that 9 times out of 10 protoss cannot be expected to know, and on top of it, with the slowest units in the game, dealing with the drops is less then effective if they come before you have charge.
EMP, Now look, there are a lot of people who say its "balanced" now, its a complete joke, the way terrans use ghosts now its not possible to defend it properly. What they do is go send some of the ghosts up first to do their free emp splash since you cant feedback them in time because of range issues and then even if protoss has spread his/her units correctly as soon as protoss attacks with its units, their army will ALWAYS stick together like glue, once this happens a couple seconds into the engagement, terran merely uses the rest of the ghosts he was saving in the back and then poof, all hope of the protoss using their casters is gone.
And let me tell you something obvious that all protoss players know, regardless of the the shield damage of EMP, if protoss cant use their casters, it loses the engagement every single time and thats a fact
|
PvT is heavily imbalanced at the highest level right now and race winrates are hiding it.
Just look at ELO on team liquid. The best PvT player in Korea is Inca right now, but there are 11 Terrans who have higher TvP ELOs than his PvT. Despite being the best PvT player in the world he will be the underdog against most Code S Terrans.
The race winrates have been hiding the imbalance, because the previous Code S had 5 Protoss and about 20 Terran. The result is that while Protoss wins 41% of its games vs Terran, if it had been the 10 best Protoss vs the 10 best Terran it would have been much worse. My program that is similar to ELO considers win rates when the two players are even ranked within their respective races (If you are #4 Protoss I consider vs #2-#8 Terran) and I am currently seeing PvT at 32% in Korea.
|
On November 27 2011 23:09 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 18:31 Mehukannu wrote:On November 27 2011 18:04 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 17:28 architecture wrote:On November 27 2011 16:45 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 15:24 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 14:24 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 14:03 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 13:59 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 13:47 cive wrote:
[quote]
You can't say that larvae inject is more punishing than MULE because they are different variables. MULE is a gatherer and a product while larvae inject is increasing the production capacity. The consequence of missing an larvae inject is just more visible and obvious than missing a MULE drop.
If larvae inject worries people, there are many solutions. One that I use (because I miss injects lol) is getting a macro hatch pre-lair. Missing a MULE drop is pretty much not an issue in the slightest unless you've missed several in row or you're going pure production into an all in with no non unit production costs like upgrades or tech. If you miss a MULE and then drop two at once, then you've still mined the same amount of minerals and your tech is primarily limited by gas. A lot of the time you can miss MULEs with zero consequences. Well, if i was a zerg player, i can also get supply blocked with no consequences since i can just store up larva and then build drones, while protoss and terran miss out on scvs + production when they get supply blocked. Every race have their own unique mechanics i suppose. Not even close to accurate. After Terran and Protoss get enough workers to constantly produce workers from their main structure(i.e. when the game clock hits zero seconds) Their worker production is constant minus the build time of the orbital and taking chrono boosts into account. Meanwhile Zerg can and has to produce workers with as many of their larvae as they can get away with. This also means if you use all 10 larvae per minute on drones from a hatch with a queen, you can spend 500 minerals per minute on drones, which in the early game with 2 hatches and queens means up to 1000 minerals per minute, i.e. all of your early game economy if you can get away with it. Because of this you produce drones to mine minerals to make more drones meaning that any delay at an early stage of drone production has an exponential effect on your economy. Zerg are affected the most by early supply blocks. Even more so if they are a queen short whilst supply blocked as the hatchery that needs that queen will be running at less than half production capacity. But don't the same logic work for terran and protoss? If i miss a mule, it means i may get less money at this point of time --> unable to put down production facilties on time --> overcompensate on production facilities --> lost money? And if terran and zerg has both 15 drones and both get supply blocked for a min. Terran can only produce 1 scv onwards after that while zerg can produce 10 after that. Zerg will thus get more exponentially ahead. I think your just looking at how bad it is to get supply blocked as zerg and deciding on its opportunity costs when you fail to realise that it is even more crucial for other races to not get supply blocked. When Terran and Protoss are building their economy up they need 6 probes or scvs to produce workers constantly without chrono boost from their command center or nexus. Their worker production is constant. If you lose 1 worker you will be one worker down from how many you would normally have until the point at which you have enough workers. If Terran loses 3 scvs they'll be constantly 3 scvs down. If zerg loses 3 drones then by the next production cycle those 3 drones would have mined enough for 2 more drones, now you're 5 drones down, if those now nonexistant 5 drones mined for another 40 second production cycle they'd have mined enough for 3 more drones putting you 8 drones down in just 80 seconds. If you are terran and you lost 3 scvs in the same situation you lost 3 scvs and their worth of mining over those 80 seconds and thats it. Absolutely absurd analysis. People have their reality distortion fields on. Read your argument again, it's completely nonsensical. The only differences are: 1. Drone production is linked to army production, and this is mostly an issue in early game if you take severe drone AND army losses. If you only take 1 type of loss and trade against their army, then you will be mostly OK. If you take army + drone losses, that's game. 2. If Z loses large number of drones late game, say to a storm drop, Z has the option if they are not under pressure to redrone in 30s. P does not have this option. T is OK, if he has enough OCs. You disingenuous prick. You call my argument nonsensical and then fail to quantify any of your points. Perhaps you'd like to quantify what heavy losses would be or how much production in excess Zerg has than is necessary to keep up or when a macro hatch is necessary. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have a fucking clue and you're a complete hypocrite. Woah, Chill out dude. Let's not start call others by names, instead keep the responses constructive. He's right though. Missing a MULE doesn't halt your SCV production, while missing an Inject does
I'd love to see that terran and zerg players are faced with similar macro difficulties.
I'd change MULE in that way, that you can inly call down a mule every X seconds (X= time it takes to generate 50 energy with your oc). If you're high level, then you will not have any difference, but if you're not that good in macro then you'll generate some extra energy that you can not use for MULEs.
That way it would make the game more difficult and punish players, that are not as good in mechanics like others (This is one of the main criticisms of SC progamers who say, that there are not enough mechanics to distinguish between good and worse players, therefore making the game less based on skill.)
|
On January 05 2012 01:21 meadbert wrote:
PvT is heavily imbalanced at the highest level right now and race winrates are hiding it.
Just look at ELO on team liquid. The best PvT player in Korea is Inca right now, but there are 11 Terrans who have higher TvP ELOs than his PvT. Despite being the best PvT player in the world he will be the underdog against most Code S Terrans.
The race winrates have been hiding the imbalance, because the previous Code S had 5 Protoss and about 20 Terran. The result is that while Protoss wins 41% of its games vs Terran, if it had been the 10 best Protoss vs the 10 best Terran it would have been much worse. My program that is similar to ELO considers win rates when the two players are even ranked within their respective races (If you are #4 Protoss I consider vs #2-#8 Terran) and I am currently seeing PvT at 32% in Korea.
According to my program there is a 98.637% chance your program was a waste of time.
I'm sorry but numbers dont lie =/
|
On January 05 2012 01:21 meadbert wrote:
PvT is heavily imbalanced at the highest level right now and race winrates are hiding it.
Just look at ELO on team liquid. The best PvT player in Korea is Inca right now, but there are 11 Terrans who have higher TvP ELOs than his PvT. Despite being the best PvT player in the world he will be the underdog against most Code S Terrans.
The race winrates have been hiding the imbalance, because the previous Code S had 5 Protoss and about 20 Terran. The result is that while Protoss wins 41% of its games vs Terran, if it had been the 10 best Protoss vs the 10 best Terran it would have been much worse. My program that is similar to ELO considers win rates when the two players are even ranked within their respective races (If you are #4 Protoss I consider vs #2-#8 Terran) and I am currently seeing PvT at 32% in Korea.
If Inca was best PvTer in the world your race would be in big trouble. Luckily he's not.
|
I still don't get why Protoss keep complaining about their immobile army.
The only Protoss unit that is slower than Terran is the HT. Lets not even bring the warp gate into discussion lol.
The way TvP works right is, its broken in Protoss favour unless you are a Code S/A Terran. You literally either win with a timing push or you are guaranteed to lose in the late game.
|
On January 05 2012 02:10 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 01:21 meadbert wrote:
PvT is heavily imbalanced at the highest level right now and race winrates are hiding it.
Just look at ELO on team liquid. The best PvT player in Korea is Inca right now, but there are 11 Terrans who have higher TvP ELOs than his PvT. Despite being the best PvT player in the world he will be the underdog against most Code S Terrans.
The race winrates have been hiding the imbalance, because the previous Code S had 5 Protoss and about 20 Terran. The result is that while Protoss wins 41% of its games vs Terran, if it had been the 10 best Protoss vs the 10 best Terran it would have been much worse. My program that is similar to ELO considers win rates when the two players are even ranked within their respective races (If you are #4 Protoss I consider vs #2-#8 Terran) and I am currently seeing PvT at 32% in Korea.
If Inca was best PvTer in the world your race would be in big trouble. Luckily he's not.
Who is best PvTer in world in your opinion?
|
Russian Federation1607 Posts
On January 05 2012 03:33 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 02:10 keglu wrote:On January 05 2012 01:21 meadbert wrote:
PvT is heavily imbalanced at the highest level right now and race winrates are hiding it.
Just look at ELO on team liquid. The best PvT player in Korea is Inca right now, but there are 11 Terrans who have higher TvP ELOs than his PvT. Despite being the best PvT player in the world he will be the underdog against most Code S Terrans.
The race winrates have been hiding the imbalance, because the previous Code S had 5 Protoss and about 20 Terran. The result is that while Protoss wins 41% of its games vs Terran, if it had been the 10 best Protoss vs the 10 best Terran it would have been much worse. My program that is similar to ELO considers win rates when the two players are even ranked within their respective races (If you are #4 Protoss I consider vs #2-#8 Terran) and I am currently seeing PvT at 32% in Korea.
If Inca was best PvTer in the world your race would be in big trouble. Luckily he's not. Who is best PvTer in world in your opinion?
As I see there are no Protoss that plays on level of MVP/Nestea/MMA/DongRaGue right now. So that's why Protoss winrate is so low.
|
On January 05 2012 03:30 Zombo Joe wrote:
I still don't get why Protoss keep complaining about their immobile army.
The only Protoss unit that is slower than Terran is the HT. Lets not even bring the warp gate into discussion lol.
The way TvP works right is, its broken in Protoss favour unless you are a Code S/A Terran. You literally either win with a timing push or you are guaranteed to lose in the late game.
This is not a QQ thread, either back your statements with legitimate gameplay analysis or don't post anything at all.
|
On January 05 2012 03:30 Zombo Joe wrote:
I still don't get why Protoss keep complaining about their immobile army.
The only Protoss unit that is slower than Terran is the HT. Lets not even bring the warp gate into discussion lol.
The way TvP works right is, its broken in Protoss favour unless you are a Code S/A Terran. You literally either win with a timing push or you are guaranteed to lose in the late game.
no, you forgot stim and conc shells, the only unit protoss has that can pick the fight is the stalker, everything else is dead if the protoss does not want to engage and tries to retreat. that is why blizz is "maybe" giving protoss a small recall skill.
each race has it strenghts, I think the game is well balanced, all races can win at anytime in the game playing almost with any style (some do better with each style of play), waiting HOTS to fuck things up ^^
|
I don't understand how people can say that foreign Terran's don't do well because they are simply worse players, but when the same thing is suggested for Korean Protoss players they freak out. Foreign Protoss players have done well for so long, are Korean results really enough to get you guys so worked up?
Also, at the end of the day, no amount of statistics or balance injustices matter at all in whatever league you're in, so you're just mad to be mad. If you've ever blamed a loss on imbalance that's just you trying to give yourself an excuse for getting trashed.
|
On January 05 2012 01:46 TigerKarl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2011 23:09 hugman wrote:On November 27 2011 18:31 Mehukannu wrote:On November 27 2011 18:04 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 17:28 architecture wrote:On November 27 2011 16:45 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 15:24 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 14:24 Ziggitz wrote:On November 27 2011 14:03 poorcloud wrote:On November 27 2011 13:59 Ziggitz wrote:
[quote]
Missing a MULE drop is pretty much not an issue in the slightest unless you've missed several in row or you're going pure production into an all in with no non unit production costs like upgrades or tech. If you miss a MULE and then drop two at once, then you've still mined the same amount of minerals and your tech is primarily limited by gas.
A lot of the time you can miss MULEs with zero consequences. Well, if i was a zerg player, i can also get supply blocked with no consequences since i can just store up larva and then build drones, while protoss and terran miss out on scvs + production when they get supply blocked. Every race have their own unique mechanics i suppose. Not even close to accurate. After Terran and Protoss get enough workers to constantly produce workers from their main structure(i.e. when the game clock hits zero seconds) Their worker production is constant minus the build time of the orbital and taking chrono boosts into account. Meanwhile Zerg can and has to produce workers with as many of their larvae as they can get away with. This also means if you use all 10 larvae per minute on drones from a hatch with a queen, you can spend 500 minerals per minute on drones, which in the early game with 2 hatches and queens means up to 1000 minerals per minute, i.e. all of your early game economy if you can get away with it. Because of this you produce drones to mine minerals to make more drones meaning that any delay at an early stage of drone production has an exponential effect on your economy. Zerg are affected the most by early supply blocks. Even more so if they are a queen short whilst supply blocked as the hatchery that needs that queen will be running at less than half production capacity. But don't the same logic work for terran and protoss? If i miss a mule, it means i may get less money at this point of time --> unable to put down production facilties on time --> overcompensate on production facilities --> lost money? And if terran and zerg has both 15 drones and both get supply blocked for a min. Terran can only produce 1 scv onwards after that while zerg can produce 10 after that. Zerg will thus get more exponentially ahead. I think your just looking at how bad it is to get supply blocked as zerg and deciding on its opportunity costs when you fail to realise that it is even more crucial for other races to not get supply blocked. When Terran and Protoss are building their economy up they need 6 probes or scvs to produce workers constantly without chrono boost from their command center or nexus. Their worker production is constant. If you lose 1 worker you will be one worker down from how many you would normally have until the point at which you have enough workers. If Terran loses 3 scvs they'll be constantly 3 scvs down. If zerg loses 3 drones then by the next production cycle those 3 drones would have mined enough for 2 more drones, now you're 5 drones down, if those now nonexistant 5 drones mined for another 40 second production cycle they'd have mined enough for 3 more drones putting you 8 drones down in just 80 seconds. If you are terran and you lost 3 scvs in the same situation you lost 3 scvs and their worth of mining over those 80 seconds and thats it. Absolutely absurd analysis. People have their reality distortion fields on. Read your argument again, it's completely nonsensical. The only differences are: 1. Drone production is linked to army production, and this is mostly an issue in early game if you take severe drone AND army losses. If you only take 1 type of loss and trade against their army, then you will be mostly OK. If you take army + drone losses, that's game. 2. If Z loses large number of drones late game, say to a storm drop, Z has the option if they are not under pressure to redrone in 30s. P does not have this option. T is OK, if he has enough OCs. You disingenuous prick. You call my argument nonsensical and then fail to quantify any of your points. Perhaps you'd like to quantify what heavy losses would be or how much production in excess Zerg has than is necessary to keep up or when a macro hatch is necessary. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have a fucking clue and you're a complete hypocrite. Woah, Chill out dude. Let's not start call others by names, instead keep the responses constructive. He's right though. Missing a MULE doesn't halt your SCV production, while missing an Inject does I'd love to see that terran and zerg players are faced with similar macro difficulties. I'd change MULE in that way, that you can inly call down a mule every X seconds (X= time it takes to generate 50 energy with your oc). If you're high level, then you will not have any difference, but if you're not that good in macro then you'll generate some extra energy that you can not use for MULEs. That way it would make the game more difficult and punish players, that are not as good in mechanics like others (This is one of the main criticisms of SC progamers who say, that there are not enough mechanics to distinguish between good and worse players, therefore making the game less based on skill.)
I don't get this argument (as a Masters Random player, who race-picks Protoss sometimes). Yes, the Terran player isn't punished for not using MULE the second it is available (although an argument could be made that more minerals now is always better than more minerals later). But at the same time, Terran (and to a lesser extent, Protoss, due to Chronoboost) is punished more than any other race for not keeping up on SCV production.
As a Zerg player, you drone when you see no immediate threat, up to a point where any more economy will severely cut into your army supply. Zerg is capable of doing this thanks to the Spawn Larvae mechanic, which makes dozens of units available at a time, resources permitting. This gives a huge flexibility to their production, and is one of the strongest (and most unique) features of the race.
As a Terran or Protoss player, you constantly produce SCVs/Probes unless you are specifically cutting them in order to prepare for some sort of timing. Similar to how Zerg has to stay on top of Spawn Larvae, Terran and Protoss have to stay on top of worker production (without queueing) to stay competitive with their opponent. So while MULEs aren't the macro mechanic that punishes a player for not being vigilant, the actual worker production is.
And if you think it's not comparable, even missing 5 seconds between queueing up workers at 2+ CCs/Nexuses tends to add up rather quickly to a worker disadvantage against a Zerg or another Terran/Protoss who is better than you.
Similar to how if your injects aren't seamless, that production cycle is lost forever, if your SCV production isn't seamless, those potential workers (and resources) are lost forever.
|
Foreign Terrans are doing well. Kas is #1 among foreigners on TLPD right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
