|
On July 27 2012 21:58 Toastie.NL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 20:04 Osteriet wrote:On July 27 2012 17:58 Toastie.NL wrote:On July 27 2012 17:54 Osteriet wrote:
I guess somewhat of a fix would be to allow the production of terran to start at 200/200 and then halt at 99% until the supply was there.. But that would make higher tech units cruisers silly overpowere in lategame. Killing and army and facing 7 thors, 6 hellions, 4 vikings, 4 cruisers and 2 ravens!?? That would mean an investment into 10fac and 8starports. Thats 1800 gas excluding addons. Perhaps terran should actually benefit from their insanely expensive production? This is not uncalled for in lategame vs a 4/5 base Terran that opened Mech and transitioned to Skyterran
My argument was not that it couldn't happen, but that the expensive investment terran has should give some sort of benefit.. We are just debating whether you should wait the 90sec before or after you lose your entire army to a-moved chargelots.
|
On July 27 2012 21:23 Province wrote:
Offtopic, but I remember a torrent of posts a few months back about TvP, as far as I can see, such posts have dropped dramatically, without any balance changes from Blizzard as a catalyst. Did Terrans figure it out or were such posts unwarranted?
the thread got closed.
after the input of pros, several well formulated posts and points, and even some sense of agreement the thread had basically served its purpose, but now and then new posters joined in, and some others could not let go, and so the discussion went down the hill, basically there was no discussion anymore, only opinions, and even if valid points were raised (or repeated from earlier pages) they would just be dismissed, it was quite stupid really.
i do not feel like repeating my thoughts on TvP and TvZ, they are ofc a bit biased but not ridiculously so, i just hope blizzard looks at terrans lategame (units and or production) because even the new hots units are basically only an alternative to the current midgame.
|
|
|
On July 27 2012 21:23 Province wrote:
Offtopic, but I remember a torrent of posts a few months back about TvP, as far as I can see, such posts have dropped dramatically, without any balance changes from Blizzard as a catalyst. Did Terrans figure it out or were such posts unwarranted?
some koreans changed their builds (for metagame purposes, probably), now every protoss on ladder @ high masters-gm is copying that and doing builds like the following:
expo, 3 gate, robo, twilight, blink, +3 gates, never push, expand @ 12-13, drop a single forge sometime
Protoss were destroying when they were mixing aggressive play with greedy play, now Ps are back to 2-years-ago-style, aka, expanding late, always on 1-forge tops. Everyone does this, for some reason. It boggles the mind.
|
On July 27 2012 21:56 Osteriet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 21:50 LavaLava wrote:On July 27 2012 21:23 Province wrote:
Offtopic, but I remember a torrent of posts a few months back about TvP, as far as I can see, such posts have dropped dramatically, without any balance changes from Blizzard as a catalyst. Did Terrans figure it out or were such posts unwarranted? No. The TvP issues weren't balance related. They were a gameplay complaint. The win rates were equal, but Terrans didn't like being forced to all in every game or get vaporized after the clock hits an arbitrary time. It's a style complaint. These are legitimate concerns, but win rates are fine because these rushes are quite viable. Then TvZ changed radically, and actual win rates dropped a lot. Terrans decided to ignore TvP because that was a very minor complaint in comparison. Terrans haven't really asked blizzard for anything and gotten it, so they're trying to take it one step at a time. TvP issues are not the main concern anymore. This and losing to vastly inferior players because the toss side of the matchup is notably easier and way more forgiving. I always cherish a good beatup by someone who is better than me, not by someone with half the apm.
And on the flipside, its annoying how Terran can make any combination of MM they want in the early game and just walk across the map and kill you if you miss a FF or a timing was slightly off. Not to mention the 111 is still really good.
|
On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:On July 27 2012 21:41 monkybone wrote:
Giving terran the tech reactor from the campaign (a reactor which works for all units, e.g. 2 tanks at a time) as an upgrade from the fusion core or something could give terran the production they lack in the late game. Could be an upgrade on the reactors and tech labs themselves, like a transformation. That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong.
In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 27 2012 22:40 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 22:08 Havik_ wrote:On July 27 2012 21:56 Osteriet wrote:On July 27 2012 21:50 LavaLava wrote:On July 27 2012 21:23 Province wrote:
Offtopic, but I remember a torrent of posts a few months back about TvP, as far as I can see, such posts have dropped dramatically, without any balance changes from Blizzard as a catalyst. Did Terrans figure it out or were such posts unwarranted? No. The TvP issues weren't balance related. They were a gameplay complaint. The win rates were equal, but Terrans didn't like being forced to all in every game or get vaporized after the clock hits an arbitrary time. It's a style complaint. These are legitimate concerns, but win rates are fine because these rushes are quite viable. Then TvZ changed radically, and actual win rates dropped a lot. Terrans decided to ignore TvP because that was a very minor complaint in comparison. Terrans haven't really asked blizzard for anything and gotten it, so they're trying to take it one step at a time. TvP issues are not the main concern anymore. This and losing to vastly inferior players because the toss side of the matchup is notably easier and way more forgiving. I always cherish a good beatup by someone who is better than me, not by someone with half the apm. And on the flipside, its annoying how Terran can make any combination of MM they want in the early game and just walk across the map and kill you if you miss a FF or a timing was slightly off. Not to mention the 111 is still really good. MMM timings pushes are notoriously ineffective as of late, and works only when toss makes a grave error. Also, the 111 with tanks/banshees/marines and/or raven is totally phased out of the metagame, and is not considered a strong all in compared to various other factory options terran has, usually with hellions, or even marine tank medievac.
strategies should never rely on mistakes by your opponent; they should reward you for better control than your opponent.
I'm glad I'm not terran.
|
On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:On July 27 2012 21:41 monkybone wrote:
Giving terran the tech reactor from the campaign (a reactor which works for all units, e.g. 2 tanks at a time) as an upgrade from the fusion core or something could give terran the production they lack in the late game. Could be an upgrade on the reactors and tech labs themselves, like a transformation. That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that.
Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient.
I feel like you're arguing a position that existed 2-3 months ago. Not many pro Terrans are lamenting the state of TvP at the moment.
Also, Medivac pushes are still worth doing, even if they're not game-ending. They force the Toss to be honest and not cut too many units. As long as you don't overcommit with your push, you're fine.
|
|
|
On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:On July 27 2012 21:41 monkybone wrote:
Giving terran the tech reactor from the campaign (a reactor which works for all units, e.g. 2 tanks at a time) as an upgrade from the fusion core or something could give terran the production they lack in the late game. Could be an upgrade on the reactors and tech labs themselves, like a transformation. That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now.
Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly.
If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble.
|
On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:On July 27 2012 21:41 monkybone wrote:
Giving terran the tech reactor from the campaign (a reactor which works for all units, e.g. 2 tanks at a time) as an upgrade from the fusion core or something could give terran the production they lack in the late game. Could be an upgrade on the reactors and tech labs themselves, like a transformation. That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. Yes, because the premise is false. Terran having "difficulties" with lategame Protoss production doesn't mean that lategame Protoss production is imbalanced. It means that certain Terrans aren't playing the lategame properly. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble.
Why does a cozy discussion always end up with someone going retard? Do you really think that its just up to "certain terran" to play better? geez.
|
|
|
Terran IMO is the weakest race at the moment. We have to kill Protoss off specifically before they get late game tech such as archon, templar, chargelot,etc.. If I've let a protoss get to this late game army compo, even with ghosts, I've very rarely won. Also, terran has to make mass tanks and siege/unsiege along the map vs zerg to win, if your caught unsieged its gg..MMM only works vs zerg if you can split like a pro or drop very good, in a head on fight banelings kill you, and you get fungalled. Zerg can beat T with their lvl 1-2 units, but T needs to get level 3 units (tanks) to make it even, which I think is stupid to. Can't pressure zerg early really, unless you go at like 5 mins before their queens/spines come. I believe terran is better than protoss early game, but as long as the toss can use sentrys good and monitor drops, if they get to late game and get the templars/chargelots/archons going, they win. Also, infestor broodlord combo is to strong, if you make vikings they get fungalled, and broodlords seem to beat all terran units on the ground. Terran requires more micro than any other race, it's only "balanced" at high level because the better players can micro/control units better. At lower leagues its pretty imbalanced when the zerg/protoss can a-move, whilst the terran has to control all his army and siege/unsiege through the map. There are less terrans than ever on ladder now so it's pretty much proven that T needs work. Z even has queen buff now to which makes it worse. I'm not the best player (Gold/Platinum 1 v 1) diamond/master teams, so I'm sure I'm not the best to say this, but from playing a lot of games this is what I feel.
|
On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:On July 27 2012 21:41 monkybone wrote:
Giving terran the tech reactor from the campaign (a reactor which works for all units, e.g. 2 tanks at a time) as an upgrade from the fusion core or something could give terran the production they lack in the late game. Could be an upgrade on the reactors and tech labs themselves, like a transformation. That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now.
Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all.
If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead."
|
|
|
On July 27 2012 23:05 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 21:46 Havik_ wrote:
[quote]
That would be a bit too strong. TvP late game comes down to micro, that's it. Both sides have to micro like crazy to win. Only difference is Terrans have to be a little bit better about splitting vs Storms. I like the idea of adding some of the crazier stuff from the campaign to the multiplayer though. I don't know, the problem has been that terran can't reproduce their army after a huge engagement while Protoss can. I fail to see how this would be too strong. In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." Do you understand the difference between supply efficiency and cost-efficiency? A Terran army is significantly weaker than a Protoss army of equal supply. So yeah, if you actually kill a toss army and are left with 5 marines you have achieved great cost-efficiency, more than you could hope for.
And there goes your credibility. You don't understand/watch the matchup at anything approaching the pro level (unless Avilo is your metric for the epitome of TvP). Stop whining and get better.
|
|
|
On July 27 2012 23:09 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:07 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 23:05 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 23:02 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:55 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:51 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:49 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:46 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2012 22:37 monkybone wrote:On July 27 2012 22:28 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
In the late game, Terran can mine almost entirely without SCVs, which means they have a higher army supply no matter what the Toss does. So you're still fine. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that terran has trouble with protoss production capabilities, and that this is a possible solution to it. Bringing in another aspect of the matchup isn't an argument against that. Yes it is. Terran doesn't need to produce at the same rate as Protoss because they have a larger army supply, which, given positioning and good micro, is incredibly cost-efficient. So you're debating the premise of the discussion (which is that terran has difficulties with lategame protoss production capabilities), and not actually arguing for any of the positions. And yes, Terran still has problems with mass warpgate TvP, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about that now. If you don't want to discuss it, then your point is without merit, because you offer no proof that high level Terrans are actually having trouble. What counts as proof? A ton of replays showing terrans coming out ahead of lategame engagements only to lose their momentum to a mass warp in of zealots which not only pushes the army back, but if warped in near the terran base can wreck the economy? All the proof lies in front of you. We've seen it time and time again, and it's generally accepted that mass warp gate is a huge problem in TvP, so while you don't agree with the premise, most others will, so I'm not going to waste time on that right now. Replays from whom? Master leaguers? GMs? Pros? Korean pros? I've only seen the first two in any number, the third rather scarcely, and the latter almost never at all. If you trade efficiently with a Protoss 200/200 army, you should not be taking significant damage from a pure Zealot warpin. Read that again: efficiently. You have more supply in army at the beginning of the battle. Barely edging out the Protoss army and have 5 Marines left doesn't count as "coming out ahead." Do you understand the difference between supply efficiency and cost-efficiency? A Terran army is significantly weaker than a Protoss army of equal supply. So yeah, if you actually kill a toss army and are left with 5 marines you have achieved great cost-efficiency, more than you could hope for. And there goes your credibility. You don't understand/watch the matchup at anything approaching the pro level (unless Avilo is your metric for the epitome of TvP). Stop whining and get better. You should stop talking... I haven't whined at all, and I'm trying to discuss TvP in a constructive manner. If you don't have anything but idiotic ad hominems left to add, you can kiss your own credibility goodbye. You haven't exactly proven your own expertise in this thread.
You haven't appealed to anything except opinion of the majority of Terran posters on this forum. Newsflash: the opinion of the majority of Terrans on this forum is fucking irrelevant to whether there is an insurmountable problem with TvP. I say 'insurmountable' because that is the only criteria which would imply imbalance, given that no amount of skill would allow you to reliably win against good Protoss players. This has nowhere been established; not by you, and not by anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
51553
2047
1414
331
264
EPT
