|
On July 04 2012 15:51 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 14:21 FakeDeath wrote:
Guys watch how Hack played lategame TvZ against Losira yesterday in Game 3 Code A Round of 48.
BCs+Vikings+Ravens rape the entire Bls+Infestor army.
It was a rare sight to see.
Check how he plays TvZ.Certainly worth to watch.
The funny thing is that he expand more aggresively than Losira and while at the same time put on pressure by doing multiple drops while transitioning into late game air army(BCs+Ravens+Vikings) Hack won because Losira's macro slipped and he was indecisive defending/counter attacking. The BCs were just the flourish. To really evaluate BC+raven as a game plan, watch Bomber vs freaky in the Code A RO48 on Atlantis Spacebear. Entertaining game, despite the massive end game air army being killed by mass infestors alone. Despite a lack of neural parasite (which would have made the fight a whole lot easier).
That game was more on Bomber dropping the ball honestly.
3 bases vs 1 base?
Plus, the guy who is only known for his unhealthy obsession with infestors and only makes them?
Then,you should make ghost which is the only thing Bomber failed to make.
If he had ghosts and actually build turrets in his bases, he would have won hands down.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=348037
|
I feel it is about time we need to focus on balancing through map.
No one today would say Steppes of War was a balanced map.
We cannot keep changing unit stats forever.
The fact that some maps have 50+% A vs B while other maps have 50-% A vs B means balancing by means of choosing maps is entirely possible.
We need some standard for maps.
Probably ramp at natural for PvP, neutral depot at ramp for 3 pylon block stupidity, no rock at 3rd yet possible rock TO the 3rd like Ohana, map distance of about 40-50sec from natural to natural by a worker, and 10 or higher number of base locations can be agreed by majority of modern players.
Multiple paths from base to base like Cloud Kingdom are becoming more standard today, too.
Maps are more balanced today than, say, 1 year ago. We need more experiments though.
|
On July 04 2012 16:13 Orek wrote:
We need some standard for maps.
Probably ramp at natural for PvP, neutral depot at ramp for 3 pylon block stupidity, no rock at 3rd yet possible rock TO the 3rd like Ohana, map distance of about 40-50sec from natural to natural by a worker, and 10 or higher number of base locations can be agreed by majority of modern players.
Multiple paths from base to base like Cloud Kingdom are becoming more standard today, too.
Maps are more balanced today than, say, 1 year ago. We need more experiments though.
We try to be more creative and innovative to the metagame by creating more unique map designs, but the players don't want it, so we stick to our current criteria of what maps need in order to be played.
|
Now before I start my yappering just know that I am not talking about win rates. I am talking about how the game is balanced in such a narrow way... Ahh this matchup is perfectly balanced, all you have to do is build zealot at 3.15 cyber 5.55 and don't make stargates etc.
What I mean by that, you got to jump on the bandwagon and pick from thebuilds blizzard hands you or you are at a disadvantage (A.K.A. the builds that aren't UP)
I'm not talking about going straight for battlecruisers followed by ghosts should be viable... nono... I'm just saying that entire tech paths are horrible in certain matches, and just useless units that you almost never see, because they are... (up/useless take your pick)
Now I know what you are going to say Hots is comming out. Well even when Hots comes out WoL will still be a game that is playable for any other gamer, and to keep it in its flawed state just wont make ends meat...
I actually suggest major reworks on a bunch of units... I'm tired of going vs roach max and doing the same build over and over again to deny that push... and the followups are almost always the same and so on and so on.... Its like you are just repeating a recipe again and again, which ofc you could argue that repeating the same stuff over and over again is fun, but blizzard has often said that they want every build to be viable to make every game feel unique and entertaining... And some months ago they announced that they will only be applying minor patches and buffs when they actually need to change, quite a bit...
This only applies to some match-ups btw
Its just blizzards unwillingness to take a minor risk in order to improve flaws is kinda annoying imo... Make the carrier&fleet bacon cheap and nerf the carriers strenght, do the same thing with the battlecruiser, increase the hydralisks speed off creep and reduce damage vs light... Random suggestions but you get where I am heading...
Now lets compare, lets say if league of legends champions were all perfectly balanced but everyone picked the same items for every game and there were no situational items, every champ would just go for, lets say bloodthirster... Then the items (A.k.a. builds) would require a buff, because then LoL would have a shitload of items that would never be used..
|
On July 04 2012 21:16 Mr.Bimbles wrote:
Now before I start my yappering just know that I am not talking about win rates. I am talking about how the game is balanced in such a narrow way... Ahh this matchup is perfectly balanced, all you have to do is build zealot at 3.15 cyber 5.55 and don't make stargates etc.
What I mean by that, you got to jump on the bandwagon and pick from thebuilds blizzard hands you or you are at a disadvantage (A.K.A. the builds that aren't UP)
I'm not talking about going straight for battlecruisers followed by ghosts should be viable... nono... I'm just saying that entire tech paths are horrible in certain matches, and just useless units that you almost never see, because they are... (up/useless take your pick)
Now I know what you are going to say Hots is comming out. Well even when Hots comes out WoL will still be a game that is playable for any other gamer, and to keep it in its flawed state just wont make ends meat...
I actually suggest major reworks on a bunch of units... I'm tired of going vs roach max and doing the same build over and over again to deny that push... and the followups are almost always the same and so on and so on.... Its like you are just repeating a recipe again and again, which ofc you could argue that repeating the same stuff over and over again is fun, but blizzard has often said that they want every build to be viable to make every game feel unique and entertaining... And some months ago they announced that they will only be applying minor patches and buffs when they actually need to change, quite a bit...
This only applies to some match-ups btw
Its just blizzards unwillingness to take a minor risk in order to improve flaws is kinda annoying imo... Make the carrier&fleet bacon cheap and nerf the carriers strenght, do the same thing with the battlecruiser, increase the hydralisks speed off creep and reduce damage vs light... Random suggestions but you get where I am heading...
Now lets compare, lets say if league of legends champions were all perfectly balanced but everyone picked the same items for every game and there were no situational items, every champ would just go for, lets say bloodthirster... Then the items (A.k.a. builds) would require a buff, because then LoL would have a shitload of items that would never be used..
A strategy game is meant to be played strategically. BW too had very composition centred match-ups, with the mass mech for tanks / mine / goliaths against protosses and bio play against zerg (this is just an example). I don't see what your point here is ... basically what you're saying is:
"We have to go through specific tech paths in order to counter our opponents in every game" ... That is only coz players much better than you and I have been refining builds for long enough to identify which composition is best. You say you'd like the game to offer more variety of tech paths but that's just not possible since we got all the information online to know what works best in every situation, therefore people aim for that because they ... DUUUHHH ... want to win.
As for units being useless in some MU it's just ... normal. Why would someone build reaper in PvT when 80% Protoss units are robotic? (people tried, it can be pretty good against mass zealots in late game, however, it's been proven that marines are more cost efficient). What you're basically complaining about is that every unit has a hard counter ... and that's what players logically aim for. So you're complaining about what makes SC2, SC2. Play another game ...
BTW, your comparison with LoL is plain nonsense since in LoL every champion DO HAVE 1 optimized item build, many items are NEVER used, and reactionary items are just a joke.
|
On July 04 2012 15:52 FakeDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2012 15:26 sieksdekciw wrote:On July 04 2012 14:21 FakeDeath wrote:
Guys watch how Hack played lategame TvZ against Losira yesterday in Game 3 Code A Round of 48.
BCs+Vikings+Ravens rape the entire Bls+Infestor army.
It was a rare sight to see.
Check how he plays TvZ.Certainly worth to watch.
The funny thing is that he expand more aggresively than Losira and while at the same time put on pressure by doing multiple drops while transitioning into late game air army(BCs+Ravens+Vikings) Your post has showed us the truth about a successful terran play in tvz. Basically you have to have better multitasking, micro and macro by far, while expanding and dropping on 3 places at the same time and the zerg has to play in a slump (Losira is one of the best zergs out there but I think we both know his performance vs Hack was not one of his highest plays.) I hardly think hack won cause of ravens hsm. For that matter you might say he won cause of neosteel bunker... no, he won just cause simply outplayed his opponent by a huge amount. Once you try him against a zerg more his level, like symbol, you are going to see that infestors still can fungal ravens and that corruptors are far more effective in protecting your broodlords than sitting unused nearby for about 20 seconds. I didn't say he won cause of Ravens HSM or Neosteel bunker lol don't even know why he researched it. FYI Symbol lost to a similar style played by Sculp in the GSTL.Though this lategame terran air army is firstly popularized by Bomber first. Mass expanding while applying pressure using multiple drops and transitioning into late game air army(BCs+Ravens+Vikings)is the way to go. People that say terran got no lategame army to compete with Bls+Infestor is wrong. The problem is mainly because zergs can transition into late game army(Bls+Infestor or Ultras) a lot quicker than terran now due to queen buff and minimal defense and focused heavily on tech and economy. If terran can get to the supreme late game with like 5 or 6 bases and get their late game army(BCs+Ravens+Vikings/Ghost if needed),they can compete with the Bls+Infestor army which most terran bitched about.
I think you got things wrong. Terrans arent complaining cause there is no counter to bl infestor corruptor. They complain because it is ridiculously easy for a zerg to reach this composition, while terran's counter to it is far harder to get and also is a really weak counter.
What do i mean by this? Well, currently defensive zergs who make no major mistakes can easily reach this composition. If terran doesnt apply pressure, zerg can reach this composition that fast and have so many resources and creep spread that it is not even funny. So, it is up to the terran to act, hence the expression ticking clock which is often used to describe tvx matchups because terran late game is weaker than toss and zerg late games.
This is my point 1: terran has to act in order to be even with his opponent. Zerg, with the queen buff just has to basically stay put and macro. If terran does damage, he is even, if not, he is behind. I really think being required to do something on a time interval is harder than being required to do nothing.
Which brings me to my nextvpoint. Lets assume the terran played better than the zerg and did some damage, so zerg enters late game with only a minor advantage. It is time the terran to prepare for the zergs deathball. The counter, as we see, is a huge amount of vikings and ravens and 3/3 bio and tanks and more ccs than zergs had infestors. Even if you have all that you cant engage head on. No, sir, you have to constantly drop, move around the map and try to do damage so when the final battle does occur you can have a chance.
Which brings me to my next point. infestors dont really have a counter that doesnt require you to be severely better than your opponent. Ghosts can be fungaled before or while in range for snipe/emp and brood lords just destroy them. Vikings and ravens are just as useless if you did not split perfectly, you will lose them all to chain fungals. Hsm is ridiculously low range and energy intensive, one second being away from battle and thats it. Same applies for marine splits. So basically infestor broodlord corruptor requires the terran to have a lot more micro even with the supposed counter. Also, that counter is incredibly expensive, slow to make and vulnerable to tech switches which are the thing zerg is famous for.
If you dont see a problem with the current situation, I will be surprised.
|
Yeah, I don't think people understand that the Queen buff being too good isn't about having made Zerg stronger per se or Terran counters weaker per se, but that Zerg now gets to their end-game composition faster. This is a problem, since Terran quite simply can't out-greed a Zerg (nobody can, just due to the way Larva Inject works) and it means that Terran's counter will be too late to really put the Terran in a convincing position in the same way that a Zerg is in a convincing position.
If I might sum up the current Zerg mindset, let me refer to Idra's comment on SotG, wherein he claimed that if you let a Zerg get the economy to tech switch freely without having it yourself, you deserve to lose. This is a fallacious line of argument because it rests on the premise that the non-Zerg player has made some kind of mistake in macroing. This is not the case. There is a point at which well-macroed, passive, defensive Zerg will achieve that sort of economy during which a Terran or Protoss player will not be there yet. This means, clear as day, that the Zerg player is ahead. It's not decisive, by any means, but it's an advantage granted by default play, which is what people are mad about. Of course, Avilo did a fucking terrible job explaining it, but at the core, he was right: Terran do agree that if Zerg gets to this level when they themselves don't have it, they're going to lose. The problem is that they don't see any aggressive ways to deal with this anymore, since even the "mass bio expand" that Idra suggests and Illusion uses on a regular basis is a far cry from putting Terran on even ground. Like I said before: nobody can out-greed a Zerg who's allowed to play greedy.
|
Did anyone ever notice - among the "dynamic unit movement" discussion and all those people stating "just learn to spread your units" - how perfect the Zergling-Baneling combination is? So you have your ball of Marines and a mixed and CHEAP Zerg force comes up to him ... you split and the Zerglings kill you (more surface area for melee units to attack), you dont split and the Banelings do. So basically its "lose/lose" for the Terran bio tech and with Baneling landmines there is yet another option to get a mass of units exploded for cheap.
The Hellion opening was one option to keep the Zerg numbers and economy down, but after the Queen change their bases are safe (unless the Zerg screws up and refuses to build enough Queens) from Hellions (which COULD have been made safe with a few Spine Crawlers and SimCity (like blocking off space behing minerals with an evo chamber) instead) for "free" ... since the Queens really help spreading the creep fast too and defend against air too.
|
I find 14 cc into 3 rax (this walls off perfectly on maps like shakuras, it still works very well on maps with larger ramps as well. Just use your 3rd cc as part of the wall off.
Get a reactored factory + 2 more fact with tech labs to get BF and siege mode asaply. Your econ once the 3rd orbital is up should be going into full retard mode as you have more minerals than you know what to do with (at this time make an ebay and another cc).
Go out and bbq some shit and take back map control. This build holds off even massive baneling busts / all ins because if scvs are repairing your wall as it's getting hit then it takes just that many more banelings to break it down.
If they do break it down immediatly pull back your scvs obviously, if it doesn't? You might've just won the game because a baneling bust happening off 2 base before 10 min means the zerg is way behind in tech. Even if they get roaches, it's roaches without speed.
|
On July 02 2012 10:13 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 10:04 plogamer wrote:On July 02 2012 09:17 Assirra wrote:
A lot of those comparisons focus more on the zerg advantages rather then both of it.
corrupter vs viking: range doesn't matter? park those vikings above your marines, use the range to your advantage.
ultra vs thor: 1 is range and the other is meelee. if you have a small space like lets say a ramp you have 1 ultra fighting but if you do the same as thors suddenly every thor with the range is shooting at the enemy.
Or how about the fact that a thor can actually shoot up? 1 banshee can destroy your whole ultra party if you aren't prepared for it.
The ghost vs infestor i sorta have to give you that except that some of your costs are silly.
Really adding the costs for a startport? why not the lair for zerg while you are at it?
and when will people learn to split their stuff against fungal? a fungal on a couple units is a waste of energy.
Btw zergs advantage is also their disadvantage larva wise. If you take out bases you not only take out mining but also production.
To do the same with a terran you have to be in their base to get to the production.
Like i said before, you focus to much on zerg advantage rather then Terrans. Yes, park vikings above marines so they all get fungaled together. 1 banshee destroy ultras? Are you kidding me? Do you know how long that would take? Adding cost of lair is like adding the cost of factory that has to be built before starports can be made. Macro hatches solve a lot of production problems for the zerg. spread your stuff? Nobody said you need to make a nice clump of all your units. Yea it will take ages but that is not the point, the point is that ultra's can't shoot up. How bout using a couple banshees? spread out so you can only have 1 fungal/banshee. Adding starport to the cost is silly as well. Unless you go pure mech without ever going marines you will have a starport for just medivacs. Unless i am missing something zerg doesn't have more then 1 macro hatch usually so the moment you kill 2bases with drops you hurt their production, a lot.
So, split marines, spli vikings, without overlapping. Make 'couple' banshees against ultras. oh, also kill two bases with drops.
Any decent terran can tell you how impossible that is.
"Like i said before, you focus to much on zerg advantage rather then Terrans." Take your own advice.
|
Now that HSC joins many other tournaments in the "no terrans in the top 8" group, makes me ask has there ever been a race that has done this poorly in foreign tournaments? I'm thinking of zerg in 2010, but since then all races have had a solid representation even if terran was considered OP in the GSL. When protoss had their sad zealot time for example, they still seemed to do just fine in foreign tournaments.
Honestly it feels less like a big deal as HOTS beta should be starting real soon and everything will change, but it does make tournaments less interesting to watch.
|
On July 08 2012 10:23 Bagi wrote:
Now that HSC joins many other tournaments in the "no terrans in the top 8" group, makes me ask has there ever been a race that has done this poorly in foreign tournaments? I'm thinking of zerg in 2010, but since then all races have had a solid representation even if terran was considered OP in the GSL. When protoss had their sad zealot time for example, they still seemed to do just fine in foreign tournaments.
Honestly it feels less like a big deal as HOTS beta should be starting real soon, but it does make tournaments less interesting to watch.
You have to take into account that there were only 7 Terrans out of 32 players at the event from the start, so that played some role in it.
|
On July 08 2012 10:29 Karthane wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 10:23 Bagi wrote:
Now that HSC joins many other tournaments in the "no terrans in the top 8" group, makes me ask has there ever been a race that has done this poorly in foreign tournaments? I'm thinking of zerg in 2010, but since then all races have had a solid representation even if terran was considered OP in the GSL. When protoss had their sad zealot time for example, they still seemed to do just fine in foreign tournaments.
Honestly it feels less like a big deal as HOTS beta should be starting real soon, but it does make tournaments less interesting to watch. You have to take into account that there were only 7 Terrans out of 32 players at the event from the start, so that played some role in it.
It certainly did, but nonetheless it's another tournament with no Terrans doing well. And there was no DRG or Nestea or Symbol at this even either.
|
On July 08 2012 10:40 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 10:29 Karthane wrote:On July 08 2012 10:23 Bagi wrote:
Now that HSC joins many other tournaments in the "no terrans in the top 8" group, makes me ask has there ever been a race that has done this poorly in foreign tournaments? I'm thinking of zerg in 2010, but since then all races have had a solid representation even if terran was considered OP in the GSL. When protoss had their sad zealot time for example, they still seemed to do just fine in foreign tournaments.
Honestly it feels less like a big deal as HOTS beta should be starting real soon, but it does make tournaments less interesting to watch. You have to take into account that there were only 7 Terrans out of 32 players at the event from the start, so that played some role in it. It certainly did, but nonetheless it's another tournament with no Terrans doing well. And there was no DRG or Nestea or Symbol at this even either.
Without trying to defend the current balance (I have stated before that i find the current ZvT situation hilarious at best) some of the Terran players in HSC played really questionably as well. Not sure what was wrong with MVP today but he did not play nearly as good as you'd expect him to.
The only Terrans who had potential to make a deep run were him and Happy imho. As i said, he either chocked horribly today, or something was wrong with him, because his games looked horrible. Frankly aside from Thorzain and the empire troop (Kas, Happy, Beasty) there aren't many Terrans in Europe who can truly keep up with the top players like Mana, Nerchio, Dimaga etc.
What I am trying to say is that HSC with only 7 out of 32 players Terran to begin with is not a really good example, but the state of the games is. Frankly if you saw the drubbing MMA took by DRG in the IPL tournament that shows exactly how bad TvZ currently is. The pretty much acknowledged king of TvZ 4 months ago, got stomped as if he was a silver league player...
|
|
|
On July 08 2012 10:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 10:13 Assirra wrote:On July 02 2012 10:04 plogamer wrote:On July 02 2012 09:17 Assirra wrote:
A lot of those comparisons focus more on the zerg advantages rather then both of it.
corrupter vs viking: range doesn't matter? park those vikings above your marines, use the range to your advantage.
ultra vs thor: 1 is range and the other is meelee. if you have a small space like lets say a ramp you have 1 ultra fighting but if you do the same as thors suddenly every thor with the range is shooting at the enemy.
Or how about the fact that a thor can actually shoot up? 1 banshee can destroy your whole ultra party if you aren't prepared for it.
The ghost vs infestor i sorta have to give you that except that some of your costs are silly.
Really adding the costs for a startport? why not the lair for zerg while you are at it?
and when will people learn to split their stuff against fungal? a fungal on a couple units is a waste of energy.
Btw zergs advantage is also their disadvantage larva wise. If you take out bases you not only take out mining but also production.
To do the same with a terran you have to be in their base to get to the production.
Like i said before, you focus to much on zerg advantage rather then Terrans. Yes, park vikings above marines so they all get fungaled together. 1 banshee destroy ultras? Are you kidding me? Do you know how long that would take? Adding cost of lair is like adding the cost of factory that has to be built before starports can be made. Macro hatches solve a lot of production problems for the zerg. spread your stuff? Nobody said you need to make a nice clump of all your units. Yea it will take ages but that is not the point, the point is that ultra's can't shoot up. How bout using a couple banshees? spread out so you can only have 1 fungal/banshee. Adding starport to the cost is silly as well. Unless you go pure mech without ever going marines you will have a starport for just medivacs. Unless i am missing something zerg doesn't have more then 1 macro hatch usually so the moment you kill 2bases with drops you hurt their production, a lot. So, split marines, spli vikings, without overlapping. Make 'couple' banshees against ultras. oh, also kill two bases with drops. Any decent terran can tell you how impossible that is. "Like i said before, you focus to much on zerg advantage rather then Terrans." Take your own advice.
Yes, because queueing drops behind enemy mineral-lines is so micro-intensive. If you box correctly you can split marines and vikings at the same time, and vikings don't need to be as perfectly splitted as the marines anyways.
Banshees are a pain in the ass to deal with in the lategame, even if they are only used to harass bases. The 6range makes it possible to hide it from the range of even 4 sporecrawlers, and if you are sending 1 banshee at a time at his infestor/ling, you can make him waste ridicilous amounts of energy for the banshees, and maybe even kill an infestor or two. Then just attack after he has wasted like 5 fungals worth of energy on to the banshees.
Actually I could do that (split marine viking, drop, banshee), masters Zerg, excluding the macro-ing at the same time.
There really is a problem in ZvT, but maybe it's not the infestor/broodlord at all. Maybe it is the marine. Just the thought of one unit killing every non-AoE unit in the game seems ridicilous, and adding the price to that too, it's just fucking funny how good marines are.
If marine could be nerfed, if Blizzard would just touch it instead of everything around it, Terran might actually have some buffs, while the marine-killing units (infestor, colossus) could get nerfed.
Marines are so ridicilously cost-effektive in small numbers, especially lategame dropped in Zerg expansions, that Terran would be WAY too strong with an army as migthy as the protoss deathball. Marine/raven/medivac would become almost unbeatable if raven was to be buffed in the current metagame.
I personally think that marine is the biggest problem in StarCraft 2 right now. No race has units as cost-effektive as it is, not in small groups, not in big groups. The only other units which kill COMPLETELY EVERYTHING are colossus and infestor, both of which are made to counter the marine. Marines being nerfed down, especially in the lategame, could bring Terran tech to the same level of the other races.
Just why do Terrans think that ravens are a god-awful unit and an ridicilously expensive one? Because marine is better. Why won't we see thors in the lategame compositions? Because marines are more cost-effektive, even in the lategame. Why can't BC:s be buffed? Because a BC army as cost effektive as the protoss deathball combined with marinedrops would be THE most imbalanced thing in the game. Think about 10 3/3 chargelots dropped into your base in lategame. 8marines with a medivac and 3/3 are as scary as those.
I have no idea how I would nerf the marine without breaking terran earlygame, but ofcourse if marine would be nerfed things like bunkers and reapers and hellions could be buffed to counter that. Actually, everything could be buffed except maybe marauders.
|
From a protoss point of view, tvz looks pretty impossible for the terran if he doesn't all in or do heavy pressure.. Maybe my lack of my experience with either races but this is just a impartial point of view..
|
Just why do Terrans think that ravens are a god-awful unit and an ridicilously expensive one?
Because they are, and because 1 slip up means they all get Fungaled and you lose thousands of Gas.Why won't we see thors in the lategame compositions?
We do. Why can't BC:s be buffed?
Because Blizzard hates buffing Capital Ships.
|
|
|
On July 08 2012 11:22 Pinna wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 10:12 plogamer wrote:On July 02 2012 10:13 Assirra wrote:On July 02 2012 10:04 plogamer wrote:On July 02 2012 09:17 Assirra wrote:
A lot of those comparisons focus more on the zerg advantages rather then both of it.
corrupter vs viking: range doesn't matter? park those vikings above your marines, use the range to your advantage.
ultra vs thor: 1 is range and the other is meelee. if you have a small space like lets say a ramp you have 1 ultra fighting but if you do the same as thors suddenly every thor with the range is shooting at the enemy.
Or how about the fact that a thor can actually shoot up? 1 banshee can destroy your whole ultra party if you aren't prepared for it.
The ghost vs infestor i sorta have to give you that except that some of your costs are silly.
Really adding the costs for a startport? why not the lair for zerg while you are at it?
and when will people learn to split their stuff against fungal? a fungal on a couple units is a waste of energy.
Btw zergs advantage is also their disadvantage larva wise. If you take out bases you not only take out mining but also production.
To do the same with a terran you have to be in their base to get to the production.
Like i said before, you focus to much on zerg advantage rather then Terrans. Yes, park vikings above marines so they all get fungaled together. 1 banshee destroy ultras? Are you kidding me? Do you know how long that would take? Adding cost of lair is like adding the cost of factory that has to be built before starports can be made. Macro hatches solve a lot of production problems for the zerg. spread your stuff? Nobody said you need to make a nice clump of all your units. Yea it will take ages but that is not the point, the point is that ultra's can't shoot up. How bout using a couple banshees? spread out so you can only have 1 fungal/banshee. Adding starport to the cost is silly as well. Unless you go pure mech without ever going marines you will have a starport for just medivacs. Unless i am missing something zerg doesn't have more then 1 macro hatch usually so the moment you kill 2bases with drops you hurt their production, a lot. So, split marines, spli vikings, without overlapping. Make 'couple' banshees against ultras. oh, also kill two bases with drops. Any decent terran can tell you how impossible that is. "Like i said before, you focus to much on zerg advantage rather then Terrans." Take your own advice. Yes, because queueing drops behind enemy mineral-lines is so micro-intensive. If you box correctly you can split marines and vikings at the same time, and vikings don't need to be as perfectly splitted as the marines anyways. Banshees are a pain in the ass to deal with in the lategame, even if they are only used to harass bases. The 6range makes it possible to hide it from the range of even 4 sporecrawlers, and if you are sending 1 banshee at a time at his infestor/ling, you can make him waste ridicilous amounts of energy for the banshees, and maybe even kill an infestor or two. Then just attack after he has wasted like 5 fungals worth of energy on to the banshees. Actually I could do that (split marine viking, drop, banshee), masters Zerg, excluding the macro-ing at the same time. There really is a problem in ZvT, but maybe it's not the infestor/broodlord at all. Maybe it is the marine. Just the thought of one unit killing every non-AoE unit in the game seems ridicilous, and adding the price to that too, it's just fucking funny how good marines are. If marine could be nerfed, if Blizzard would just touch it instead of everything around it, Terran might actually have some buffs, while the marine-killing units (infestor, colossus) could get nerfed. Marines are so ridicilously cost-effektive in small numbers, especially lategame dropped in Zerg expansions, that Terran would be WAY too strong with an army as migthy as the protoss deathball. Marine/raven/medivac would become almost unbeatable if raven was to be buffed in the current metagame. I personally think that marine is the biggest problem in StarCraft 2 right now. No race has units as cost-effektive as it is, not in small groups, not in big groups. The only other units which kill COMPLETELY EVERYTHING are colossus and infestor, both of which are made to counter the marine. Marines being nerfed down, especially in the lategame, could bring Terran tech to the same level of the other races. Just why do Terrans think that ravens are a god-awful unit and an ridicilously expensive one? Because marine is better. Why won't we see thors in the lategame compositions? Because marines are more cost-effektive, even in the lategame. Why can't BC:s be buffed? Because a BC army as cost effektive as the protoss deathball combined with marinedrops would be THE most imbalanced thing in the game. Think about 10 3/3 chargelots dropped into your base in lategame. 8marines with a medivac and 3/3 are as scary as those. I have no idea how I would nerf the marine without breaking terran earlygame, but ofcourse if marine would be nerfed things like bunkers and reapers and hellions could be buffed to counter that. Actually, everything could be buffed except maybe marauders.
We btw rarely see Thors because they aren't a very good units. Strong single target is just completely useless when you have to deal with tons of smaller stuff and even the Anti-Air is not very strong against anything but Mutas. They're good against low numbers of units and Ultras but thats about it. Terran has way too many single target units that become very ineffective in big battle that are also slow as fuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
