|
It seems like TvP late game is a struggle because protoss warps in a ton of zealots but Terran has no AOE damage to defend against it.
If we look at Terran's AOE option late game we have tanks, Hellions, EMP, planetaries and ravens.
Tanks are generally considered bad in TvP
Ravens get feedback too easily
but EMP is used quite often.
I am interesting in seeing more positional planetaries from Terran...such as on the high ground of Antiga.
and more blueflame hellions mixed in with the MMMVG
Mass zealot isn't a big problem in ZvP because of units like the baneling/infestor/broodlords, which either do splash damage or are air units.
I am thinking that battlecruisers could serve the same role as broodlords in TvP...however they still can be fedback by templars....
I actually would like to see Battlecruisers with cooldown on yamato cannon instead of energy...that way they would be more viable against protoss.
|
On April 26 2012 06:19 LaundroMatt wrote:
Problem: It is very difficult to see what is being made from multiple morphing Zerg eggs (for the zerg player himself; not the opponent).
Solution: Have an icon of some sort appear in the units selected area that indicates what sort of unit each egg is going to morph into. For example, there could simply be a letter in the corner of the egg corresponding to the hotkey for morphing that unit (similarly to how Terran add-ons make a building have an R or T in the corner).
Side Effects: Maybe reduce the skill cap? Definitely be a little messier for the visuals.
I feel like this isn't a big change, or one that will be especially game-changing at high levels. I'm sure that pro Zergs know exactly what they build and what to do with it. However, I feel like this is a feature that is a little friendlier to the lower levels.
Example: A mid-game Zerg wants to use a bunch of his larvae to build assorted units. Creepy Zerg voice informs him that he is out of supply and needs to build additional overlords. Half-a-battle later, Zerg attempts to build more units, and is again informed that he needs to build additional overlords. Zerg player thinks: "Hmm. Did my overlords hatch and I already need more, or have they not hatched yet and I don't really need to build more, because they should be done within ten seconds or so?" Zerg player really has no viable way to find out whether overlords are being produced, short of clicking on every egg and seeing if it is an overlord. This is, of course, very tedious and time-consuming and he would overall be better off just making a few more overlords regardless of the presence or absence of currently morphing overlords.
With the suggested change it would really only be a little easier to find out in this particular circumstance. Here you would have to go to a hatchery (or several hatcheries in close proximity), Ctrl-click an egg, and then you would be able to see from the icons if there were any overlords being morphed. It would be possible that no overlords are within those eggs, but still being morphed in a location that was not close enough to be picked up by the Ctrl-click.
A Further solution to this sub-problem might be to have another global button on the hatchery to Select Eggs (similar to the Select Larvae button). This would let the Zerg player see all of his eggs (without even having to relocate the field of view to a hatchery; it could be done just using hotkeys) and see what is currently morphing. I am not sure whether I like the idea of having a Select Eggs button; as there are already enough buttons to press at the Hatchery. But perhaps it wouldn't be so big of a deal.
Comparing this idea to other races, it doesn't seem like an overbeneficial feature, since they can see very easily whether a pylon is warping in or a supply depot is under construction, and by pressing the hotkey(s) for their production facilities, they can tell which of their buildings is building Something, and I would think that they can usually remember which unit they attempted to build from which building.
I think that if there is any significant implication for high level play, it would be a lot easier to set individual rally points for different kinds of units. The most obvious case is sending overlords to a different location than the rest of the army. But it could be particularly useful for, say, corruptors that you wanted to morph into broods, or infestors that you would want to keep in a not-quite-so-exposed location, or mutas that you wanted to send close to the intended target. Again, this doesn't seem like an unfair advantage, since each Protoss or Terran building can be rallied to its own declared spot, if there is such a preferance for where these units go after production is complete.
Edit: Sorry for the really long post, I felt like if I say as much as I had thought about it, then it would save time and confusion from people asking for clarifications or whatnot.
Sorry this got lost under the swathe of TvP complaints.
I don't mind the concept, but I agree with that it might be a bit difficult to graphically represent properly.
But allowing both the scouting opponent to have a better idea what's in production AND allowing the zerg to better understand exactly how much of what they're making would be nice.
|
On April 27 2012 06:23 neoghaleon55 wrote:
Mass zealot isn't a big problem in ZvP because of units like the baneling/infestor/broodlords, which either do splash damage or are air units.
I am thinking that battlecruisers could serve the same role as broodlords in TvP...however they still can be fedback by templars....
I actually would like to see Battlecruisers with cooldown on yamato cannon instead of energy...that way they would be more viable against protoss.
I don't think it should be cooldown, but I think that it is stupid how feedback cancels a Yamato Canon that is being casted and how the Cruiser stays on full energy until the "Shot is out".
I mean: I have casted Yamato faster then he casted feedback. Sry, you lost the "micro war".
Also I think it would not be that far fetched, if BCs could shoot while moving. It fits the model and with the current attack speed, they just cannot be used for some form of kiting, while you lose a lot of shots right now, when you don't just have them on a-move. (like when you accidently select one among kiting MMM, or when you try to yamato something and then move the cruiser back over your unit ball)
I seriously think, that BCs could fill a lot of roles in lategame TvP with a little bit of balancework put in them (not so much in TvZ; corruptorspam is more efficient against BC than against Vikings, while Vikings seem more efficient - and more reachable - against BL/Infestor/Corruptor) - 10 range Yamato could be used against Templar and colossi, Mass upgraded BCs can go toe to toe with stalkers, blinking under them is not really an option as long as there is MMM support.
|
On April 27 2012 15:56 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 06:23 neoghaleon55 wrote:
Mass zealot isn't a big problem in ZvP because of units like the baneling/infestor/broodlords, which either do splash damage or are air units.
I am thinking that battlecruisers could serve the same role as broodlords in TvP...however they still can be fedback by templars....
I actually would like to see Battlecruisers with cooldown on yamato cannon instead of energy...that way they would be more viable against protoss.
I don't think it should be cooldown, but I think that it is stupid how feedback cancels a Yamato Canon that is being casted and how the Cruiser stays on full energy until the "Shot is out". I mean: I have casted Yamato faster then he casted feedback. Sry, you lost the "micro war". Also I think it would not be that far fetched, if BCs could shoot while moving. It fits the model and with the current attack speed, they just cannot be used for some form of kiting, while you lose a lot of shots right now, when you don't just have them on a-move. (like when you accidently select one among kiting MMM, or when you try to yamato something and then move the cruiser back over your unit ball) I seriously think, that BCs could fill a lot of roles in lategame TvP with a little bit of balancework put in them (not so much in TvZ; corruptorspam is more efficient against BC than against Vikings, while Vikings seem more efficient - and more reachable - against BL/Infestor/Corruptor) - 10 range Yamato could be used against Templar and colossi, Mass upgraded BCs can go toe to toe with stalkers, blinking under them is not really an option as long as there is MMM support.
I definitely like the idea of BC's being used lategame TvP. Or Thors even.
Basically I feel like MMM, though fantastic against Protoss early-mid, is still at the end of the day tier 1 and should support larger more powerful units. This is sort of the problem with overall Terran design in that mech and air units almost have a set "role" and those roles are typically things to do with TvT and TvZ.
The issue of course with a buff to units like Thors and BCs is TvT and TvZ, which appears to be (arguably) so well balanced. A BC buff would be less affecting on that MU, and I think a Thor buff targetted for doing damage to ground (or you know, strike cannons being useful again) to help terran in a lategame situation would be great.
Not something like "mass BC and win", but rather "bring 2 BC with MMMVG army" like how Protoss can simply bring 2-4 collosus with their army.
Agree with Yamato buff. At the moment it's basically only for overkill purposes and a pretty splash effect. Be nice that, even if they didn't add range, they at least reduced the charge up. If it was a little more instantaneous battles would go off with a bang. If this or range was done, then Terran would have a good initiator for battles besides the ghosts and siege tanks.
Honestly Capital Ships in SC2 need work for all races. Though BL could just stay as they are I guess.
|
This is sort of the problem with overall Terran design in that mech and air units almost have a set "role" and those roles are typically things to do with TvT and TvZ.
One of the big issue is also upgrades. Protoss basically have their whole ground army on 2 sets of upgrades. Hellions actually do ok vs zealots early game. Problem is late game vs 3-3 zealots...
|
On April 25 2012 20:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 16:50 50bani wrote:On April 25 2012 12:24 usethis2 wrote:
Stop talking as if Warp Gates are a balance problem, because even if it was it would not go away. It is what defines the Protoss race in SC2 and Blizzard will not give up this unique/cool concept.
And exactly the same arguments can made for Spawn larvae. Zerg units have inferior stats per cost and generally don't have much synergy between them. (most of them are designed for "counter") Why do you think that should be the case? If you think Stalkers are made weak because of Warp Gates, then imagine 30 stalkers popping out after a big battle. How about 10 Colossi at once. Zerg units have to be weaker because they're easily massed.
You can make every race like Terran, sure. It'll be easier to balance. But then you will end up with mirror-like games in all match-ups. As much as warping and larvae-spawning seem problematic, the game needs to be balanced around them in order to have variety and fun. What if Terran had WG instead of Protoss? Do you see a problem here? One race can attack better and defend better at the same time because WG removes travel distance, as well as gain a unit round by instand warp-in followed by build time cooldown. I don't see how this doesn't look game braking to you. Just think of what this would do if introduce into any RTS game. Terran bio is way more mobile than Protoss. How would that be equivalent? The races are unique, what part of this do you not understand? I mean what if I started talking about "what if Terran had larva and could produce 20 scvs at once! Think of what larva would do in any RTS game. I don't see how this doesn't look game breaking to you." Yes, all races have "gamebreaking mechanics" if you haven't noticed. These are exactly the things that make the game interesting and fun to play.
No, Terran is the least mobile army. Just look at the movement speed of units. They are the slowest. You are thinking mass Medivac drops, aren't you? Well, if you think about Blink and Colossus cliff-walking, it is Zerg that drew the short straw here, despite the Creep bonus. Do I like that Blizzard has tried to make terrain irrelevant? Of couse not.
|
On April 26 2012 06:23 Borkbokbork wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 16:50 50bani wrote:On April 25 2012 12:24 usethis2 wrote:
Stop talking as if Warp Gates are a balance problem, because even if it was it would not go away. It is what defines the Protoss race in SC2 and Blizzard will not give up this unique/cool concept.
And exactly the same arguments can made for Spawn larvae. Zerg units have inferior stats per cost and generally don't have much synergy between them. (most of them are designed for "counter") Why do you think that should be the case? If you think Stalkers are made weak because of Warp Gates, then imagine 30 stalkers popping out after a big battle. How about 10 Colossi at once. Zerg units have to be weaker because they're easily massed.
You can make every race like Terran, sure. It'll be easier to balance. But then you will end up with mirror-like games in all match-ups. As much as warping and larvae-spawning seem problematic, the game needs to be balanced around them in order to have variety and fun. What if Terran had WG instead of Protoss? Do you see a problem here? One race can attack better and defend better at the same time because WG removes travel distance, as well as gain a unit round by instand warp-in followed by build time cooldown. I don't see how this doesn't look game braking to you. Just think of what this would do if introduce into any RTS game. What if Protoss had mules, scan, supply drop, and could fly their buildings and make planetary fortresses? One race can defend better because they can expand inside their own base and then float it out, can mine better because they can call down a mule anywhere, scan anywhere, (forgot detection? no problem!) and drop supply. What if Protoss could lower and raise pylons? I don't see how this doesn't look game breaking to you. Just think of what this would do if introduced into ANY RTS game!!!
Terran has to pull SCVs to build, so there is a hidden cost to buildings. This is why MULEs have been introduced. They did them wrong because they could have been a bit weaker, such as returning 20minerals/trip and in turn didn't have to require an Orbital Command(wasn't this how it worked in the Alpha?)
Supply Drop is not that powerful, I'm not sure why you are pissed off about it. Scan is weak because it is too small. I would always trade that for Protoss Observers.
Flying buildings are gay. Never said otherwise. Planetary Fortress is there because Terran doesn't have a vs ground defensive structure, Bunkers need to be manned so they take up supply. I would trade any defensive structure in the game, Terran or Zerg for Protoss Cannons.
|
On April 27 2012 17:03 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +This is sort of the problem with overall Terran design in that mech and air units almost have a set "role" and those roles are typically things to do with TvT and TvZ. One of the big issue is also upgrades. Protoss basically have their whole ground army on 2 sets of upgrades. Hellions actually do ok vs zealots early game. Problem is late game vs 3-3 zealots...
I used to not agree with Terran complaining about upgrades, but, after watching SC2 for so long and noticing that casters are shocked if mech or sky get upgrades at all most of the time, I realise the design flaw.
Protoss - 2 ground upgrades, 2 air, 1 all
Zerg - 3 ground upgrades (ranged / melee), 2 air
Terran - 2 bio upgrades, 2 mech upgrades, 2 sky upgrades
5 / 5 / 6
That extra lot of upgrades is a big thing. Even then, most races never upgrade "air" (except for mutas or vikings), so in ground it's like 3/3/4.
I don't know what the "better" solution is though. Break down upgrades for Zerg and Protoss into 6 or optimise an upgrade for terran into 1? Even just having sky and mech armour combine into "steel plating" or something would be nice. Optimally I think Terrans would want to combine at least bio and mech armour since sky upgrades are typically their own "thing".
|
In fact, upgrades can be a way to balance late game TvP, and even Warpgates can stay in the game.
-If you condense all Terran plating into one upgrade on the Ebay, hopefully cheap since this would want to be a buff, it opens more unit compositions, especially with air units
-Marauders can get +2 to base damage, none to bonus and voila, they now work better against Zealots lategame, and since they already fare better against splash damage it makes lagegame bio stronger.
-if Chargelots are a problem you can make them not get upgraded above level 1 on anything. We have just turned them into complete garbage now, but all the openings remain the same, WG is still there, +1 Zealot timings against Zerg are still there.
|
Does anybody have any thoughts on the possibility of making broodlings cost minerals, a la interceptors for carriers, and scarabs for reavers?
The positional advantage that broodlords cost seems like they would warrant investigation, and given that they are the only unit capable of increasing (albeit indirectly) supply via broodlings for free (and has been the only unit ever in sc2 or scbw to do this) it seems like a fair addition to the game.
Do this, and add an upgrade to increase broodling damage/broodling storage (from like base 5 to 8 or something) and that way in drawn out engagements broodlings can't just be exhausted without any resource cost.
Something like 10minerals / broodling seems completely fair given the damage output/positional advantage t hey warrant which i mentioned.
|
On April 27 2012 18:32 mburke05 wrote:
Does anybody have any thoughts on the possibility of making broodlings cost minerals, a la interceptors for carriers, and scarabs for reavers?
The positional advantage that broodlords cost seems like they would warrant investigation, and given that they are the only unit capable of increasing (albeit indirectly) supply via broodlings for free (and has been the only unit ever in sc2 or scbw to do this) it seems like a fair addition to the game.
Do this, and add an upgrade to increase broodling damage/broodling storage (from like base 5 to 8 or something) and that way in drawn out engagements broodlings can't just be exhausted without any resource cost.
Something like 10minerals / broodling seems completely fair given the damage output/positional advantage t hey warrant which i mentioned.
:O
we should probably make siegetank shots costs money, too.
It's a terrible idea. The broodlord causes positional advantage because it is a siege unit.
Tanks and collosi fulfill the same role. Broodlings are artillery ammo, they don't last forever.
|
if siege tanks shot marines (lol that image is hilarious) that served as artificial chokes for tank shots and caused clumping, then i'd agree they definitely should.
tanks already kill marines faster than broodlings do anyway, so in effect terrans do end up paying extreme amounts of minerals for 1-2 shots of broodlings anyway.
the same goes for protoss but to a lesser degree bc of blink.
as it were, broodlords are not simply a "siege unit" they are a siege "lord" who creates individual units 2 at a time for zero cost. units that do damage not just with output (that shares synergies with all other ground units) but with position, and splash (in terrans case).
|
i think the desired effect with a broodlord could be made just as well if it simply shot like guardians did. with a single, very long range hit point.
rather, browder messed with a cool design and we got flying death and /endofthegame in most cases.
|
This thread has gone way downhill to be actually useful.
|
On April 27 2012 21:03 mburke05 wrote:
if siege tanks shot marines (lol that image is hilarious) that served as artificial chokes for tank shots and caused clumping, then i'd agree they definitely should.
tanks already kill marines faster than broodlings do anyway, so in effect terrans do end up paying extreme amounts of minerals for 1-2 shots of broodlings anyway.
the same goes for protoss but to a lesser degree bc of blink.
as it were, broodlords are not simply a "siege unit" they are a siege "lord" who creates individual units 2 at a time for zero cost. units that do damage not just with output (that shares synergies with all other ground units) but with position, and splash (in terrans case).
That's not how it works. It's not like blizzard designed the Broodlord and then added that it would create units.
Broodlords damage is laughable for what they cost, what they require, how slow and specialized they are.
You know why? Because they additionally have broodlings.
I mean what you are suggesting is like saying: "Hey tanks don't just attack but splash, that's unfair!" Well, they have been balanced and designed to do so!
If you want, you can also compare the Broodlords broodling effect to Voidray charge up, because once a certain "saturation" level is reached, the broodlings will die as fast as they are created, so there is a maximum "charge" of Broodlords.
|
On April 27 2012 18:32 mburke05 wrote:
Does anybody have any thoughts on the possibility of making broodlings cost minerals, a la interceptors for carriers, and scarabs for reavers?
The positional advantage that broodlords cost seems like they would warrant investigation, and given that they are the only unit capable of increasing (albeit indirectly) supply via broodlings for free (and has been the only unit ever in sc2 or scbw to do this) it seems like a fair addition to the game.
Do this, and add an upgrade to increase broodling damage/broodling storage (from like base 5 to 8 or something) and that way in drawn out engagements broodlings can't just be exhausted without any resource cost.
Something like 10minerals / broodling seems completely fair given the damage output/positional advantage t hey warrant which i mentioned.
for that to even be slightly fair, the broodlings would have to have the timer removed, so that they had to be killed.
|
On April 27 2012 22:35 halfies wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 18:32 mburke05 wrote:
Does anybody have any thoughts on the possibility of making broodlings cost minerals, a la interceptors for carriers, and scarabs for reavers?
The positional advantage that broodlords cost seems like they would warrant investigation, and given that they are the only unit capable of increasing (albeit indirectly) supply via broodlings for free (and has been the only unit ever in sc2 or scbw to do this) it seems like a fair addition to the game.
Do this, and add an upgrade to increase broodling damage/broodling storage (from like base 5 to 8 or something) and that way in drawn out engagements broodlings can't just be exhausted without any resource cost.
Something like 10minerals / broodling seems completely fair given the damage output/positional advantage t hey warrant which i mentioned. for that to even be slightly fair, the broodlings would have to have the timer removed, so that they had to be killed.
i think that's a reasonable request, given the upgrades i mentioned above, or if not, an extended timer. i think having no timer would make it a little ridiculou to just attack random high/lowgrounds where protoss/terran would have to do ridic shit to get like 2-3 broodlings out.
also i think if you make them last permanently youd have to examine the supply broodlords cost against the cap (4 supply currently vs 6 for carriers).
zergs enjoy the benefit of having the only t3 unit at 4 supply currently.
|
On April 27 2012 22:58 mburke05 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 22:35 halfies wrote:On April 27 2012 18:32 mburke05 wrote:
Does anybody have any thoughts on the possibility of making broodlings cost minerals, a la interceptors for carriers, and scarabs for reavers?
The positional advantage that broodlords cost seems like they would warrant investigation, and given that they are the only unit capable of increasing (albeit indirectly) supply via broodlings for free (and has been the only unit ever in sc2 or scbw to do this) it seems like a fair addition to the game.
Do this, and add an upgrade to increase broodling damage/broodling storage (from like base 5 to 8 or something) and that way in drawn out engagements broodlings can't just be exhausted without any resource cost.
Something like 10minerals / broodling seems completely fair given the damage output/positional advantage t hey warrant which i mentioned. for that to even be slightly fair, the broodlings would have to have the timer removed, so that they had to be killed. i think that's a reasonable request, given the upgrades i mentioned above, or if not, an extended timer. i think having no timer would make it a little ridiculou to just attack random high/lowgrounds where protoss/terran would have to do ridic shit to get like 2-3 broodlings out. also i think if you make them last permanently youd have to examine the supply broodlords cost against the cap (4 supply currently vs 6 for carriers). zergs enjoy the benefit of having the only t3 unit at 4 supply currently.
That's completly dependend on how you define "T3". By classical "tech" standards, other races don't even have a comparable tech level as high as Broodlords.
Pool-->Lair-->InfestationPit/Spire-->Hive-->GreaterSpire => Broodlord in 5steps (same for Ultralisks)
Barracks-->Factory-->Starport/TechLab-->FusionCore => Battlecruiser in 4steps
Gateway-->Cybercore-->Starport-->Fleet Beacon => Carrier in 4steps (same amount of steps for HT/DT/Archon and Colossus)
By other standards - for example "timingwise in current metagame" - you can surely consider fully upgraded Ravens (2supply; rarely used in endgame TvT and even more rarely in TvZ), and storm HT's (2supply) T3 as well.
Or if you rather want gascost as an indicator for "lategame" unit, Ravens and HTs are up there as well.
Cost/supply? Ravens, Ghosts, Banelings...
|
I think that the additional step in tech could be considered to account for the fact that once you have the tech you can pop as many BLs as you have the resources for in the same amount of time it would take to morph one.
On April 27 2012 08:06 bittman wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 26 2012 06:19 LaundroMatt wrote:
Problem: It is very difficult to see what is being made from multiple morphing Zerg eggs (for the zerg player himself; not the opponent).
Solution: Have an icon of some sort appear in the units selected area that indicates what sort of unit each egg is going to morph into. For example, there could simply be a letter in the corner of the egg corresponding to the hotkey for morphing that unit (similarly to how Terran add-ons make a building have an R or T in the corner).
Side Effects: Maybe reduce the skill cap? Definitely be a little messier for the visuals.
I feel like this isn't a big change, or one that will be especially game-changing at high levels. I'm sure that pro Zergs know exactly what they build and what to do with it. However, I feel like this is a feature that is a little friendlier to the lower levels.
Example: A mid-game Zerg wants to use a bunch of his larvae to build assorted units. Creepy Zerg voice informs him that he is out of supply and needs to build additional overlords. Half-a-battle later, Zerg attempts to build more units, and is again informed that he needs to build additional overlords. Zerg player thinks: "Hmm. Did my overlords hatch and I already need more, or have they not hatched yet and I don't really need to build more, because they should be done within ten seconds or so?" Zerg player really has no viable way to find out whether overlords are being produced, short of clicking on every egg and seeing if it is an overlord. This is, of course, very tedious and time-consuming and he would overall be better off just making a few more overlords regardless of the presence or absence of currently morphing overlords.
With the suggested change it would really only be a little easier to find out in this particular circumstance. Here you would have to go to a hatchery (or several hatcheries in close proximity), Ctrl-click an egg, and then you would be able to see from the icons if there were any overlords being morphed. It would be possible that no overlords are within those eggs, but still being morphed in a location that was not close enough to be picked up by the Ctrl-click.
A Further solution to this sub-problem might be to have another global button on the hatchery to Select Eggs (similar to the Select Larvae button). This would let the Zerg player see all of his eggs (without even having to relocate the field of view to a hatchery; it could be done just using hotkeys) and see what is currently morphing. I am not sure whether I like the idea of having a Select Eggs button; as there are already enough buttons to press at the Hatchery. But perhaps it wouldn't be so big of a deal.
Comparing this idea to other races, it doesn't seem like an overbeneficial feature, since they can see very easily whether a pylon is warping in or a supply depot is under construction, and by pressing the hotkey(s) for their production facilities, they can tell which of their buildings is building Something, and I would think that they can usually remember which unit they attempted to build from which building.
I think that if there is any significant implication for high level play, it would be a lot easier to set individual rally points for different kinds of units. The most obvious case is sending overlords to a different location than the rest of the army. But it could be particularly useful for, say, corruptors that you wanted to morph into broods, or infestors that you would want to keep in a not-quite-so-exposed location, or mutas that you wanted to send close to the intended target. Again, this doesn't seem like an unfair advantage, since each Protoss or Terran building can be rallied to its own declared spot, if there is such a preferance for where these units go after production is complete.
Edit: Sorry for the really long post, I felt like if I say as much as I had thought about it, then it would save time and confusion from people asking for clarifications or whatnot. Sorry this got lost under the swathe of TvP complaints. I don't mind the concept, but I agree with that it might be a bit difficult to graphically represent properly. But allowing both the scouting opponent to have a better idea what's in production AND allowing the zerg to better understand exactly how much of what they're making would be nice.
Eh, I'm not sure that letting a scouting opponent be able to see is a very good idea. I mean, T and P can hide starports/gates and let them start production without opponent knowledge, unless it gets scouted. Currently this is fine because Z can hide tech too (has to be on creep, but there are still places to make it at least less obvious, e.g. out of range of a typical scan of the base) so being able to see what eggs are morphing into kind of negates the ability to hide tech to some extent, unless Z hides a hatchery somewhere and only builds that tech unit from there.
As it is, depending on the timing of when the opponent scouts the hatcheries, they can already see the tech units being built because they know that such units have to come from a finite number of hatcheries, which are more often than not easy to figure out where they are (seeing how they emit a full-screen's worth of creep). Being able to look at the eggs just increases the window of opportunity for scouting tech units being built before they are rallied or moved out of vision.
|
The TvP matchup could use some small changes but i think that the problems that terrans are having in the lategame could easily be fixed with some new tricks or strategies that some pros might display. For example in some pro games i see terrans scanning their army whenever they move out to kill observers and then cloaking their ghosts to snipe hts without any chance of feedback. As a protoss player it annoys me how terran has so many options to harrass/attack you that require different responses but it is near impossible to scout until observers come out at around 7 minutes. That means for protoss players they are playing blind for 7 minutes and some terrans take advantage of this. For example if i scout a bunker and assume he is going for some sort of banshee play i have to get a robo to combat cloak banshee play. But if the terran decides for a double starport banshee all in with marines and banshees, my robo is 200/100 down the drain as immortals are near useless vs this composition. Since 4+ banshees is very cost inefficient to fight without pheonix, i pretty much have to micro perfectly to hold an early attack. As for late game TvP, terrans are having trouble with high templar, ghosts could use a slight buff.
Some proposed balance changes:
Reduce banshees damage vs non-light
9 damage per shot (+3 vs light)
this will make reduce their effectiveness vs stalkers but still keep them as an effective harrassment tool for workers as they will still kill any worker in 2 shots.
i think if protoss had earlier ways to scout banshees then the nerf wouldnt be needed but short of making observers a gateway unit i dont see any possiblity
Make Ghost Cloak a cooldown spell already reasearched by default
The cloak would cost initial energy but not drain energy, the cloak would last 30 seconds or so enough to cloak scan and snipe hts and get out
I think that the current state of TvP is just the fact that some terrans havent gotten used to dealing with alot of chargelots because protoss players have finally started using chargelots to deal with MMM and this could change as terrans get used to doing it.
And to people who say that protoss is an easy race and they just have to A-move for the win, try playing them and try microing your sentires, collosus, high templar and blink stalkers all at the same time while keeping up with warp ins at your main. Where one missed storm or one misplace forcefield could cost you the game. I started to play Terran a bit and within a week i was beating platinum level players at a race i just began to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
