|
Complaint
Problem: Raven turrets last too long on the field and cost too little. It is to easy for terran to take 4-5 ravens and throw them into a mineral line and shut the mining down on those bases. This is especially easy for them to do while they attack the front. Drawing your army away from killing the turrets.
Solution: Time turrets are on the field needs to be decreased and energy to cast them needs to be increased.
Side Effects: They would not be as powerful and terran would lose some late harrassment.
|
On May 06 2012 02:36 imanoobcs wrote:
Complaint
Problem: Raven turrets last too long on the field and cost too little. It is to easy for terran to take 4-5 ravens and throw them into a mineral line and shut the mining down on those bases. This is especially easy for them to do while they attack the front. Drawing your army away from killing the turrets.
Solution: Time turrets are on the field needs to be decreased and energy to cast them needs to be increased.
Side Effects: They would not be as powerful and terran would lose some late harrassment.
Come on, that's just plainly wrong. They cost a ton of energy and are on one of the most expensive units in the game and are hardly ever used.
You were probably playing someone who upgraded them (to last longer) and probably already far behind, when this lategame harassment occured, that you are talking about.
|
|
|
The turret has no reason to last 4 minutes. And the raven is not that pricey. Compare it to any other caster. It cost 50 more gas than an infestor for example. Same amount of minerals. It has detection, can fly, has 3 abilities instead of just 2, turrets cost 50 energy instead of 75 for fungal. The seeker missle does aoe 100 damage and follows its target so it hard to miss. Fungal does 36 damage and you can miss with it. Im just saying, its not my fault its not used more often. I see them quite a bit actually. I think they should lower the time they are out to maybe 1 minute and raise the cost to 75, like storm and fungal are.
|
On May 06 2012 03:55 imanoobcs wrote:
The turret has no reason to last 4 minutes. And the raven is not that pricey. Compare it to any other caster. It cost 50 more gas than an infestor for example. Same amount of minerals. It has detection, can fly, has 3 abilities instead of just 2, turrets cost 50 energy instead of 75 for fungal. The seeker missle does aoe 100 damage and follows its target so it hard to miss. Fungal does 36 damage and you can miss with it. Im just saying, its not my fault its not used more often. I see them quite a bit actually. I think they should lower the time they are out to maybe 1 minute and raise the cost to 75, like storm and fungal are.
Are you comparing turret to storm and fungal? Only explanation, I see is that you are zerg, zergs are not famous for being terribly bright.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 06 2012 02:36 imanoobcs wrote:
Complaint
Problem: Raven turrets last too long on the field and cost too little. It is to easy for terran to take 4-5 ravens and throw them into a mineral line and shut the mining down on those bases. This is especially easy for them to do while they attack the front. Drawing your army away from killing the turrets.
Solution: Time turrets are on the field needs to be decreased and energy to cast them needs to be increased.
Side Effects: They would not be as powerful and terran would lose some late harrassment.
Have to agree with everyone else, just plain wrong. Auto turret does pitiful damage, if you pull your mineral line quickly, they can't really do much other than stopping mining. Also since it would take eons to actually kill off a nexus/hatch/cc you could deal with it quite easily. I don't see how this is a problem at all, I don't think I've ever seen this used in game scenario since ravens are so costly and investing that much for late game harass just wouldn't be worth it. Also your argument of ravens being inexpensive, is just ludicrous. Seeker missile while good AOE, is very slow and can be dealt with by isolating the targeted unit or spreading your units, not to mention it is very high energy. I'm a zerg player, and I would like to see more terrans build ravens as this would introduce novel strategies into the game. I really think blizzard has been trying to encourage raven use, not discourage it.
|
|
|
On May 03 2012 20:34 Lightspeaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 10:19 YyapSsap wrote:
Just steering away from the current discussion, wanted to add some thoughts into something thats bugging alot of T players.
Problem: Zealot in TvP.
Contrary to popular belief, protoss gateway units aren't that bad. The bad impression of this comes from the lack of the upgrades for these gateway units, where it come later in the game then the other two races (requiring a healthy amount of chrono and twilight council). This results in a period in the game where the units feel so much lacklustre especially against shieled/stimmed MM ball.
However the main crux of the problem that I want to discuss is the Zealot and how the units effectiveness rises at an exponential level as the game goes longer (in TvP). The zealot has 50/100 stat line with 1 armor, it deals alot of damage enough to kill any unit 1v1 in a straight up microless fight, has the ability to charge while hitting the target for free once and cost 100 minerals. Early game where small engagements tend to happen, zealots can be dealt with proper micro and kiting. Zealots tend to act as meat shields in the early game due to their inability to close in with the enemy unit.
Once charge is gained, things get a little different from the roles that the zealot played early game. Now they would not only be the meatshield of the army, but due to the ability to close the gap, they become an effective damage dealing unit.
Now this is where the problem starts. First and foremost, in a typical TvP composition you have MMM to adding VG later. The P starts to become more zealot heavy with colossus/HTs. Zealots become harder and harder to remove fast to get to those expensive damage dealing P units. Yet the zealots themselves if ignored can deal an insane amount of damage to an already fragile army. This normally results in a cat and mouse type of engagement where the it boils down to a forced final engagement or an engagement of the Ts choosing (latter is rare as the game).
Not only that, but zealots are probably the only units in the game where you can warp a few from a proxy pylon as mineral dump and 1A into an enemy expansion late game without having to give 0% attention to it (while doing damage). Compared to the amount of effort required to remove these zealots with a few MM units (unless your entire army is nearby). Because the T is already having to micro harder (because T gains the most from micro-ing their units compared to the other races), more and more pressure is thrown at the T player to micro/multi-task to the very limits.
So summing it all up, zealots are just way too good for what they do/cost especially when the T does not have any sort of ideal tool to deal with them and instead rely on even more micro as the game progresses to lategame.
Solution: Discuss. Some initial food for thought were making charge a spell you activate or tweaking their stat numbers e.g 60/80.
Side Effects: Discuss.
Want to know what others think about this, which also leads me to believe that the zealot is one of the main contributors to the late game mess that is TvP.
I'm a Protoss player and I actually had the same thought six months ago when I was just Chargelot/Archoning all the things all the time as far as lategame Zealots go. They're tanky, do a lot of damage and charge is powerful (albeit ridiculously stupid in making all of your Zealots charge off against one marine or zergling). The problem is that early to mid game Zealots are god-awful. They suck really, really badly. They're slow, melee and expensive which is a terrible combination; to get them to do anything forcefields are basically a necessity and when you lose them they're quite a big loss per unit (double a marine, four times a zergling). Theres a reason why the Protoss scouting poke is traditionally Zealot/Stalker. But when you get Charge and upgrades they become this massive wave of death. In short, any nerf you do to them will have to be balanced. They're absolutely terrible early on and they get absolutely destroyed. Their payoff is that in lategame they become really strong. If you nerf that then what's the payoff for making Zealots? Not to mention it'd indirectly make Protoss even more gas intensive than it already is (since they'd lose usefulness as a mineral dump). You can't JUST nerf them because they're already balanced by being so terrible early game.
You make a good point in that Zealots become disproportionately more powerful the longer the game goes on in TvP in relevance to other units. As a Terran player, I actually welcomed the Charge buff back in the day because before then all Terran had to do was keep kiting and the Zealots never really ended up paying for themselves against a well-controlled MMM ball. What I don't agree with is that you're saying that they're balanced because they basically suck early on and become enormously more powerful later. It a similar situation with people saying that Terran has to win before the late game because Protoss is so powerful when it gets to that stage. That's not a balanced game, it's a broken game. That's what players like Parting have realised. It can be risky attacking with Zealots before Charge because they're generally so bad because of Stimpack/Concussive Shell, but when they have Charge + upgraded armour + mass numbers they always tend to pay for themselves. Not just because of the damage they deal, but because it forces Terran to Stim their MM ball so much, causing a lot of indirect damage and draining a lot of Medivac energy, as well as the fact that because Protoss is so gas-dependant in the late game, they generally have a lot of spare minerals to spend on them (but then again I guess they have to have an effective unit to spend those spare minerals on). If they were to be nerfed, perhaps an alteration of the unit's stats from 100/50 to 90/60 might be okay so that Ground Armour does not have a large an influence, Ghost EMP is slightly more effective, and Plasma Shields don't see action until the super-late game.
On May 03 2012 21:05 IMPrime wrote:Chargelots can be dealt with imo. toss in general can be dealt with. BUt it's the max supply, instant warp-ins that cause all the problems. Solution: Increase the supply cap. From my observations, toss and terran have similar army counts, and any replay or game that says the terran has the higher supply usually won't take into account that the extra supply is tied up in production or are walking across the map so their standing armies are roughly the same (yeah, terran's units are cheaper so they'll have slightly more, but not by a significant amount). For example, they may both have ~60 army supply, with terran's 15 extra in production or walking across the map. When the reinforcements join, toss gets their warp in cycle, so both are now at ~75 (etc). But this all changes once the supply cap is reached. Terran will not have their extra supply in production or walking across the map. So once a big battle occurs at max supply, terrans reinforcements are taking 30-60 seconds to finish + walk across the map while protosses are in 5 seconds. Of course, just making the supply cap to something like 500 isn't going to help, as the toss will be filling his supply with stronger units which will scale better as the armies get larger. But a supply cap of 250 (or 300, which may be stretching it) I think could be tried out. Side effects: I can't think of anything bad. I even remember reading something awhile back suggesting the same thing, albeit for different reasons. It had to do with the fact that because it takes so many workers to saturate a base, extra bases beyond a certain point don't really help, at least not when it's affecting your army supply. This really hurt zerg a lot as they require the most bases and therefore the most workers, but this cuts into their army supply when the majority of their units are already supply inefficient. edit: i'd also like feedback on another change I suggested awhile back which only got a few responses http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255254¤tpage=182#3638
I agree with your point, but I don't think changing the supply cap will change anything. It will probably just be larger armies with the same unit composition and thus the same patterns of play will occur. There's also the possibility of using some of the extra supply for more economy/production anyway.
I actually think it just comes down to the power of Warp Gate technology. The problem is that in a late game situation when both players trade evenly in terms of supply, Protoss can re-max instantly with their units actually out on the map as you said, and all of a sudden as a Terran you're essentially one complete production cycle behind. If Warp Gate was somehow more of an option rather than a necessity it would help greatly, not just for TvP, but perhaps PvP aswell, because you have a slight defenders advantage with shorter reinforcement rallies. However, the argument against that may be because Terran infantry has Stimpack (faster reinforcement) and shorter build times, without Wrap Gate it would be broken, and I could see their point.
On another point, the reason why Blizzard have only "ackowledged" the issues with lategame TvP is because it's basically difficult to fix, and may require a major rework of one or both races, in which case we'll have to wait for HotS.
|
On May 06 2012 07:50 GeorgeH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 21:05 IMPrime wrote:Chargelots can be dealt with imo. toss in general can be dealt with. BUt it's the max supply, instant warp-ins that cause all the problems. Solution: Increase the supply cap. From my observations, toss and terran have similar army counts, and any replay or game that says the terran has the higher supply usually won't take into account that the extra supply is tied up in production or are walking across the map so their standing armies are roughly the same (yeah, terran's units are cheaper so they'll have slightly more, but not by a significant amount). For example, they may both have ~60 army supply, with terran's 15 extra in production or walking across the map. When the reinforcements join, toss gets their warp in cycle, so both are now at ~75 (etc). But this all changes once the supply cap is reached. Terran will not have their extra supply in production or walking across the map. So once a big battle occurs at max supply, terrans reinforcements are taking 30-60 seconds to finish + walk across the map while protosses are in 5 seconds. Of course, just making the supply cap to something like 500 isn't going to help, as the toss will be filling his supply with stronger units which will scale better as the armies get larger. But a supply cap of 250 (or 300, which may be stretching it) I think could be tried out. Side effects: I can't think of anything bad. I even remember reading something awhile back suggesting the same thing, albeit for different reasons. It had to do with the fact that because it takes so many workers to saturate a base, extra bases beyond a certain point don't really help, at least not when it's affecting your army supply. This really hurt zerg a lot as they require the most bases and therefore the most workers, but this cuts into their army supply when the majority of their units are already supply inefficient. edit: i'd also like feedback on another change I suggested awhile back which only got a few responses http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255254¤tpage=182#3638 I agree with your point, but I don't think changing the supply cap will change anything. It will probably just be larger armies with the same unit composition and thus the same patterns of play will occur. There's also the possibility of using some of the extra supply for more economy/production anyway. I actually think it just comes down to the power of Warp Gate technology. The problem is that in a late game situation when both players trade evenly in terms of supply, Protoss can re-max instantly with their units actually out on the map as you said, and all of a sudden as a Terran you're essentially one complete production cycle behind. If Warp Gate was somehow more of an option rather than a necessity it would help greatly, not just for TvP, but perhaps PvP aswell, because you have a slight defenders advantage with shorter reinforcement rallies. However, the argument against that may be because Terran infantry has Stimpack (faster reinforcement) and shorter build times, without Wrap Gate it would be broken, and I could see their point. On another point, the reason why Blizzard have only "ackowledged" the issues with lategame TvP is because it's basically difficult to fix, and may require a major rework of one or both races, in which case we'll have to wait for HotS.
A small note to this: As armies grow in size, differences in army size become less game-ending. A 130 supply Terran army vs. a 150 (with warpins) supply Protoss army is a death wish, but (in the case of 250 max) a 170 supply Terran force vs. a 190 (with warpins) supply Protoss force is slightly more manageable. (Though obviously still disadvantageous).
The difference in the first army is a 15% in Protoss' favor, while the second is only 11%. (Granted I'm just using numbers I pulled out of the air; the difference may be larger or smaller, but the concept is the same.)
Which is to say that a higher supply cap could reduce the added strength of the warpin-reinforcement lategame. By how much, I'm not certain. If the cap was increased by 50 I doubt the effect would be substantial, but if it were taken to 300 the difference in armies after warpins could diminish.
However, that may not hold, as with increased supply limits there will be more bases, more workers and more production facilities with which to warp-in reinforcements, so it may cancel itself out. As well, larger armies will mean slightly longer battles, which could leave enough time for two warpins... I can only speculate.
|
|
|
On May 06 2012 10:20 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 09:46 Killcycle wrote:
A small note to this: As armies grow in size, differences in army size become less game-ending. A 130 supply Terran army vs. a 150 (with warpins) supply Protoss army is a death wish, but (in the case of 250 max) a 170 supply Terran force vs. a 190 (with warpins) supply Protoss force is slightly more manageable. (Though obviously still disadvantageous). There is a calculation you can use for this to compare. Assuming that supply determines to the power of an army, and that even supply makes even battles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_lawsShow nested quote +With firearms engaging each other directly with aimed fire from a distance, they can attack multiple targets and can receive fire from multiple directions. The rate of attrition now depends only on the number of weapons firing. Lanchester determined that the power of such a force is proportional not to the number of units it has, but to the square of the number of units. This is known as Lanchester's Square Law. This will apply to battles in Starcraft as well. Thus, the relative power of the armies are (150/130)^2 = 1.33 in the first case, and (190/170)^2 = 1.249 in the other.
Woah, I hadn't known about these before. That's quite interesting. By its description, the law only holds for units currently in battle (i.e the front lines), so I wonder if this could be the basis for a more complex SC2 battle function?
So then the Protoss advantage is not 15% / 11%, but in fact 33% and 24.9%, respectively? No wonder my face feels so bad after a battle, lol! Though upon consideration it makes perfect sense, as the P army is able to whittle my DPS (units) down faster than I can theirs.
|
I'm watching today's Day9 Daily and writing down some interesting points as I hear them. I'll analyze them later. Some of this is paraphrased.
-the game should not be balanced at all stages of each game
-Terran is very powerful from the 10-16 minute mark
-Medivacs are the source of that power
-Stalkers give Protoss the advantage in the very early game
-in midgame, take map control and watchtowers, do drops
-once your third comes up, take fourth very soon after
-drops do not necessarily need to be microed
-KEEP THE PROTOSS PASSIVE
-Puma is NOT killing his opponent in the midgame, he is KEEPING HIM BACK
-All Puma has done is taken expansions and added on structures
-at 17 minutes, Protoss has maxed out his army and mined out his main (and half of his natural)
-Protoss cannot keep remaxing his army indefinitely
-people do not acknowledge how important it is that Terran has this fourth base and Protoss does not
-Terran can then trade with Protoss and end up winning because of the base they secure over Protoss in the midgame
-alternative style is massive damage style, where you get more Barracks and commit to dealing critical damage before the lategame
-being even on basecount with Protoss and not dealing critical damage can spell a loss in the lategame
-Terran lategame army is NOT inferior to Protoss lategame army
I didn't watch the first part, so I can't talk about that, but these are interesting ideas about the nature of TvP. Would any Terran players like to offer feedback? I know that I can't speak for you guys.
|
I've always wondered about Protoss Upgrades. T and Z have three clear upgrade path ways, they need to do both mech and bio or bio air (v protoss air upgrade), or air melee for Z, etc.. Protoss has two, ground and air. Why not make it Gateway, Robo and Air? Is there a reason that P gets upgrades to cover larger portions of their army?
For Terran +1 Infantry covers 4 units. Mech = 3 units. Air is 3-4 units (Raven is 4th or not? +1 armor maybe :S)
For Toss +1 ground covers 7-8 units. Colo, immortal, dts, archons (def upgrades don't matter i suppose), hts (armor only, pretty irrelevant), Zealots, Stalkers, sentries
|
On May 10 2012 03:25 Falconblade wrote:
I've always wondered about Protoss Upgrades. T and Z have three clear upgrade path ways, they need to do both mech and bio or bio air (v protoss air upgrade), or air melee for Z, etc.. Protoss has two, ground and air. Why not make it Gateway, Robo and Air? Is there a reason that P gets upgrades to cover larger portions of their army?
For Terran +1 Infantry covers 4 units. Mech = 3 units. Air is 3-4 units (Raven is 4th or not? +1 armor maybe :S)
For Toss +1 ground covers 7-8 units. Colo, immortal, dts, archons (def upgrades don't matter i suppose), hts (armor only, pretty irrelevant), Zealots, Stalkers, sentries
yeah and protoss armor covers only half of the health of all units.
|
|
|
On May 02 2012 13:18 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 11:34 Talack wrote:
You nerf zealots with the intention of making them less strong...
You don't nerf something and compensate the same unit by making it cheaper or do more damage or anything. Your intention is to make that unit weaker. Zealots need to be made weaker or terran needs to be given a meat shield before HOTS.
Hell it's like "I wanna play some sc2 today! nm...too many protoss online" What are you talking about? Zealots are as expensive as they are because they are so strong. Think about the extra nerfs that are built in here. If zealots cost 50m, 1 supply and are exactly half of what they are now, you need twice as many warp gates to get an equivilent strength warp in. Chokes are even more powerful due to more zealots not being able to get into the fight, splash damage, and 'critical mass' is much more effective, in the same way that they are vs lings. The mass zealot end game simply won't work. the zealots will die too fast to be of any use at all. Hellions with blue flame would wreck them. The flip side of that coin is you get more zealots, so surrounds on wide open maps will be more powerful. It'll be even easier to spend groups of zealots around the map. You could put 8 zealots in a warp prism, which would be much stronger at wiping min lines. Or 4 zealots and 2 stalkers. 4 lings cost exactly the same as a zealot, and 4 lings will kill a zealot with a ling left over, but no one says mass lings are better than mass zealot. Without the full surround lings are significantly worse. This is the same with zealots, except they have enough hp as long as they have an armour upgrade advantage that they don't need a full surround.
Terrans don't qq about lings because 8 marines and a medivac can kill virtually unlimited lings, no micro required after getting in a good position. It's weird that terrans complain so much about TvP. I play random and can hardly win PvT but have little or no particular issues in TvP. I think, sorry if this offends you. That alot of terrans believe they are alot better than they are because terran used to be OP. Now the game is more balanced so they have problems maintaning their old ranking. I used to play terran when I got sick of losing ;-)
Ps. Watch daj's TvP guide if you wanna learn to beat it instead of complaining about it.
|
On May 06 2012 09:46 Killcycle wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 07:50 GeorgeH wrote:On May 03 2012 21:05 IMPrime wrote:Chargelots can be dealt with imo. toss in general can be dealt with. BUt it's the max supply, instant warp-ins that cause all the problems. Solution: Increase the supply cap. From my observations, toss and terran have similar army counts, and any replay or game that says the terran has the higher supply usually won't take into account that the extra supply is tied up in production or are walking across the map so their standing armies are roughly the same (yeah, terran's units are cheaper so they'll have slightly more, but not by a significant amount). For example, they may both have ~60 army supply, with terran's 15 extra in production or walking across the map. When the reinforcements join, toss gets their warp in cycle, so both are now at ~75 (etc). But this all changes once the supply cap is reached. Terran will not have their extra supply in production or walking across the map. So once a big battle occurs at max supply, terrans reinforcements are taking 30-60 seconds to finish + walk across the map while protosses are in 5 seconds. Of course, just making the supply cap to something like 500 isn't going to help, as the toss will be filling his supply with stronger units which will scale better as the armies get larger. But a supply cap of 250 (or 300, which may be stretching it) I think could be tried out. Side effects: I can't think of anything bad. I even remember reading something awhile back suggesting the same thing, albeit for different reasons. It had to do with the fact that because it takes so many workers to saturate a base, extra bases beyond a certain point don't really help, at least not when it's affecting your army supply. This really hurt zerg a lot as they require the most bases and therefore the most workers, but this cuts into their army supply when the majority of their units are already supply inefficient. edit: i'd also like feedback on another change I suggested awhile back which only got a few responses http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255254¤tpage=182#3638 I agree with your point, but I don't think changing the supply cap will change anything. It will probably just be larger armies with the same unit composition and thus the same patterns of play will occur. There's also the possibility of using some of the extra supply for more economy/production anyway. I actually think it just comes down to the power of Warp Gate technology. The problem is that in a late game situation when both players trade evenly in terms of supply, Protoss can re-max instantly with their units actually out on the map as you said, and all of a sudden as a Terran you're essentially one complete production cycle behind. If Warp Gate was somehow more of an option rather than a necessity it would help greatly, not just for TvP, but perhaps PvP aswell, because you have a slight defenders advantage with shorter reinforcement rallies. However, the argument against that may be because Terran infantry has Stimpack (faster reinforcement) and shorter build times, without Wrap Gate it would be broken, and I could see their point. On another point, the reason why Blizzard have only "ackowledged" the issues with lategame TvP is because it's basically difficult to fix, and may require a major rework of one or both races, in which case we'll have to wait for HotS. A small note to this: As armies grow in size, differences in army size become less game-ending. A 130 supply Terran army vs. a 150 (with warpins) supply Protoss army is a death wish, but (in the case of 250 max) a 170 supply Terran force vs. a 190 (with warpins) supply Protoss force is slightly more manageable. (Though obviously still disadvantageous). The difference in the first army is a 15% in Protoss' favor, while the second is only 11%. (Granted I'm just using numbers I pulled out of the air; the difference may be larger or smaller, but the concept is the same.) Which is to say that a higher supply cap could reduce the added strength of the warpin-reinforcement lategame. By how much, I'm not certain. If the cap was increased by 50 I doubt the effect would be substantial, but if it were taken to 300 the difference in armies after warpins could diminish. However, that may not hold, as with increased supply limits there will be more bases, more workers and more production facilities with which to warp-in reinforcements, so it may cancel itself out. As well, larger armies will mean slightly longer battles, which could leave enough time for two warpins... I can only speculate.
Well the problem with raising the food cap is that it may have the potential to make remaxing on warp-ins proportionally less terrifying, but it also has the potential to be abused the exact same way that Protoss does now (not saying that protoss is abusing food count now). By the point in the game where 300/300 was possible, the Protoss would have far more gates etc than they would at the same point in a 200/200 situation.
Plus a Protoss 300/300 army would be absolutely MONSTROUS, as a Protoss army becomes far more powerful as it gets bigger, while Terran works in the opposite way.
|
Playing Terran is so frustrating ATM. We have no T3 units so all we have is the mid game to do massive damage but any good Zerg or Protoss already knows those timings and doesn't get really greedy/ builds units in time to defend them. Then you just slowly lose the game as Zerg takes the map and Protoss gets their deathball. Yeah you can try to out multitask them and drop in mutliple locations but any good zerg wil have overlords spread to see it/ spines at every expansion. And then dropping vs protoss is useless since they can just warp in/ build cannons to defend. TvT is the only fun matchup to play atm.
And the mid game advantage thing in TvP is honestly bullshit. Yeah you can get fast medivacs/stim/combat shields but Protoss can aleady have 2 Collosus with range/ a bunch of other units by then. Then the only way to engage is getting a ton of vikings but by that point the mid game advantage is gone and you just slowly lose unless protoss engages really poorly.
Also I can't understand why Blizzard nerfed the Ghost so hard, its not like it was easy to just destroy brood lords as your own tanks would splash on them etc not to mention the micro to use them properly against Zerg is really APM taxing. And then they nerfed EMP which was dumb, and now we cant even go reactored hellion vs zerg since the queen buff. All they have to do is make 4 queens and you need like 10 hellions to be able to keep them back.
Its like Blizzard just wants Terran players to just play turtle mech and a move/ seige their way to victory even though that never works vs good players.
|
On May 06 2012 02:36 imanoobcs wrote:
Complaint
Problem: Raven turrets last too long on the field and cost too little. It is to easy for terran to take 4-5 ravens and throw them into a mineral line and shut the mining down on those bases. This is especially easy for them to do while they attack the front. Drawing your army away from killing the turrets.
Solution: Time turrets are on the field needs to be decreased and energy to cast them needs to be increased.
Side Effects: They would not be as powerful and terran would lose some late harrassment.
4-5 ravens is a HUGE investment for terran. Their army will be much weaker than yours, which you need to exploit. Failing to do so is not a balance problem. At high level play this is a non-issue. I'm a zerg player BTW, and I pretty much despise all things Terran, but ravens are the absolute last thing in the Terran arsenal that need a nerf.
|
On May 15 2012 04:44 Solo Terran wrote:
Playing Terran is so frustrating ATM. We have no T3 units so all we have is the mid game to do massive damage but any good Zerg or Protoss already knows those timings and doesn't get really greedy/ builds units in time to defend them. Then you just slowly lose the game as Zerg takes the map and Protoss gets their deathball. Yeah you can try to out multitask them and drop in mutliple locations but any good zerg wil have overlords spread to see it/ spines at every expansion. And then dropping vs protoss is useless since they can just warp in/ build cannons to defend. TvT is the only fun matchup to play atm.
And the mid game advantage thing in TvP is honestly bullshit. Yeah you can get fast medivacs/stim/combat shields but Protoss can aleady have 2 Collosus with range/ a bunch of other units by then. Then the only way to engage is getting a ton of vikings but by that point the mid game advantage is gone and you just slowly lose unless protoss engages really poorly.
Also I can't understand why Blizzard nerfed the Ghost so hard, its not like it was easy to just destroy brood lords as your own tanks would splash on them etc not to mention the micro to use them properly against Zerg is really APM taxing. And then they nerfed EMP which was dumb, and now we cant even go reactored hellion vs zerg since the queen buff. All they have to do is make 4 queens and you need like 10 hellions to be able to keep them back.
Its like Blizzard just wants Terran players to just play turtle mech and a move/ seige their way to victory even though that never works vs good players.
He doesn't have colossus by 10 minutes, lol. Unless hes going ultra fast colossus, in which case he'll have NO upgrades whatsoever. Besides, the point isn't to engage. It's to punish mistakes, but otherwise prevent him from expanding while securing your own. You aren't supposed to stim into his natural and (try to) kill him. (lol)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
