|
On November 05 2012 14:38 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 14:15 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:34 Filter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:13 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 12:01 Chaggi wrote:On November 05 2012 11:52 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 10:50 TimENT wrote:
37 infestors in one game ----> is that okay blizzard?
Taeja struggles SOOOOO hard to barely win an engagement lategame v Rain, both floating 2500 min 1000 gas, rain warps in 48 supply worth of zealots in 1 second ----> is that okay blizzard?
Please stop complaining about PvT lategame. I saw that engagement. Taeja lost 16 ghosts right at the start and Rain still got storms off. Plus, Terran has had better win rate vs P in August, throughout WCS continental tournaments, and at MLG this weekend. This is stupid. Anyone who pulls out win rates and calls something balanced doesn't understand what people are complaining about. PvZ might have a close to 50% win rate but it doesn't matter cause it's not a balanced late game composition. Even Grubby said so on the front page during an interview in this last MLG, look at how people win, if all Protoss does is all in, and they win 90% of the time, while if Zerg gets their late game bl/infestor comp and they win 90% of the time, how does that make for a fun game? (and this is balance aside) Just like TvP, it's not too bad to kill a Protoss sub 4 bases, but after the 4th and 5th base comes up, it gets much harder for the Terran. Just cause you can be like but look Taeja did something wrong doesn't mean it's actually not that hard, but it's cause of some mistake. But it was. And that's not true at all. By that point in the game Terran can trade scvs for more army because they can mine minerals with MULEs as long as they build extra OCs. And how is using winrates less evidence than some dude pulling one engagement out of thin air and claiming balance based on that. I can show you a lategame engagement from one of my games where the Terran doesn't attempt any semblance of micro, misses EMPs and sits in storms and claim Terran lategame is imba against Protoss. That doesn't mean im right. If Colossus are in the picture you actually can't show that engagement, it doesn't exist. The problem is a lot of things frustrate the players ie. you, me and the pros because they is no response available at all for you to defend against some things in the game. Terran doesn't have a response to a mass Protoss late game warp in, it's not a gradual loss you just get smashed and it's frustrating as hell. The same thing applies to Toss players when they get steamrolled by marines, if your higher tech units are taken out there is nothing you can do but get absolutely rolled by 40 marines with stim. The same thing applies with infestor broodlord, you do everything you can to stop it but at some point a fungal lands and you may as well take your hands off the keyboard. There is no response left, it's over. The less control you have over something the more frustrating it tends to become. Mistakes should be punished, but at the same time you should feel like your opponent did something good to punish your mistake. Having your entire army mowed down because you couldn't snipe off 10 ht AND emp the Archons AND control your vikings perfectly is very frustrating. At what point did the protoss player do anything in that particular battle to outplay or outthink you? the simple answer is he didn't, he landed 1-2 storms and a-moved his army. The loss of control in those situations is why Terran players bitch so much about lategame TvP, and why many of us simply don't play that much. When a Zerg gets crushed by an immortal all in it's the same story, the Protoss player might have hit all his timings perfectly but the Zerg is totally helpless and relies on the Toss player making a mistake. Same thing with lategame PvZ, trying to get your mothership into position only to have your opponent spreading his stuff out properly means you're screwed and the game is completely out of your control, again frustrating. Removing and balancing things that are extremely frustrating is very important, it really doesn't matter if the matchup is overall very balanced if certain situations make you want to alt-f4 your game and play something else. Terran Orbital Economy lategame is quite possibly the strongest lategame, except possibly Infestor/Broodlord, simply because the Terran's army size can be 40-50 greater than the opponent. The issue has always been for Terran to reach that lategame. It's comparable to how the Protoss midgame is much weaker than the Terran midgame, and the challenge for the Protoss player is to get to the lategame without the Terran winning. There are already Terran players experimenting with this style: Kas, for example. I think it would be much wiser to wait and see how the professionals manage to play this out. Right now, the win rates are stable, so it's not like Terran is under some massive threat like Protoss was during sAviOr's reign. Any advantage that Protoss has before 10 minutes and after 16 minutes is clearly mitigated by the Terran advantage between those two milestones. All in all? No concerns about the matchup. Just want to let it play out. Please link to win rates.
To speak bluntly, win rates are posted on the general forum every month. If you are too disconnected with the scene and with the community to know where to find those easily, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread.
|
On November 05 2012 15:01 Xiphias wrote:I think one of the main reason for imbalance and also the reason for why people are saying that BW is better than SC2 is well formulated here: http://day9.tv/d/saddar/hardcounters-in-sc2/ Why must mauraders have so much extra vs armored? Same for immortals. Yes, we need spesilized units but if we just tweak the numbers a little instead of giving a unit dubble damage vs something spesific we get a more well rounded game. The only real hard-counter should be air vs things that can't shoot up....
This is silly. Look at Vultures. 5 damage against Ultra, 20 against Zergling. Siege Tank: 70 against Ultra, 35 against Zergling. This has no relevance to balance in either game.
|
On November 05 2012 16:21 GoldforGolden wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 15:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 05 2012 15:10 GoldforGolden wrote:On November 05 2012 14:59 KingAce wrote:
Units that create Armies are such a terrible design concept IMO. Infested Marines+Broodlords+fungal growth...this combo issues that when 200/200 armies collide zerg has technically a 50+ food army.
Fixing infestors requires the removal of the ability to stop movement from fungal growth. Or give it a longer startup, instead of making it insta cast.
Currently this ability shuts down pretty much all air tech of every race, that's a bit absurd IMO.
And one thing no one talks about balance wise is unit clumping. Probably one the biggest reasons we have so many AOE problems in this game.
lots of people have talked about unit clumping problem already in some other thread or this one (unit movement change). The thing is the GOOD players don't clump up their units, they always spread their units while the bad players don't. Similarly, asking infestors to not have the ability to stop movement was discussed before, it will completely shut down infestors style in ZvZ. The problem with zerg is that the bl infestor is the only cost efficient deathball, nothing else come close to it. Zerg also needs a huge amount of drones and gas to support this production and so we have lots of zerg going up to 100 drones then put lots of them as spines and keeps making the ball bigger. Once the ball is gone, zerg has no time to remax into any cost efficient ball because time don't allow them to remax into something good, and has to rely on spines, left over units and usually remaxed lings/roaches to stablise. Zerg super lategame would be nerfed by a pure fungal nerf, but really that's only a good thing, since it's BAD atm and NEEDS to be changed. It just depends on the degree you change it. For example, if that composition super endgame is only mildly mildly OP (assumption), then would changing fungal from a pure stopping snare to a 90% slow kill the unit composition? No, not really. But it might change from being mildly mildly OP to balancedish. Of course, I need you on board the assumption that as is, the composition is too strong. Regardless, it would lead to Zergs not attempting to do the style of being super fucking passive and teching to infestor/BL behind spines. It would result in Zergs being significantly more aggressive because if they play super fucking passive there's no real gain since the composition they obtain doesn't auto-crush face. Whether or not that aggression is viable is an entirely different matter (such as attempting to slam units like Stephano roach style against the enemy, except at different timings, for example maybe later game trying to slam ultra/ling/bane/infestor against a Protoss's fourth base). However, as it is.... the current playstyle is fucking atrocious with the camping behind mass spine/infestor/BL. I play Zerg just as much as Protoss and Terran, I don't think the reason the majority of Zergs do this is because "it's the only thing that will work ZvP." I think the majority of Zergs do this because it is currently above and beyond the "best" thing to do in ZvP because IF you make it to the lategame, you're essentially unbeatable save getting fucked by vortex. Surviving to it is another thing, but if you do obtain it, you're at a massive advantage. I don't actually agree the composition is TOO strong. The composition is TOO strong in the sense that it comes earlier than other race's ultra deathball. PvZ, there was a trend to go for mass air with carriers and void rays on korean ladder and it beats zerg bl infestor deathball EASY, but it was extremely difficult to make this transition. TvZ, ravens and I think you know what I am talking about. The problem right now isn't this unit composition is unstoppable, it is the timing when the broodlords are out, Terran still uses its bio/mech or toss with the ground deathball, just starting to get mothership. There is a reason why Zerg has to be so passive, the only time to drone is early to early mid game, you don't have the time to drone heavily later on. Stephano roach max for example is counting on getting the 60ish drones and just flood roaches until you win/lose. And it doesn't work on all the maps anymore. Going for infestors bl deathball is still the safer option. Zerg had been complaining how hard it is to win a game even if they have completely out-econ the Terran throughout the game (pre infestors era), especially on shakuras. I think idra said this and blizzard basically add in swarm host so that Zerg can actually end the game with lair tech units. The argument was the same as pre infestors era ZvP when the toss deathball seems to be unstoppable because even if you beat it, you would lose to gateway remax. during that time, Zerg complained how toss can just turtle up and get 3 base and move out with a move deathball that kills everything and toss complained it isn't possible to pressure the zerg without having to go all in Zerg can do different paths in mid game, it isn't always only infestor style. But to end the game, hive tech is required for upgrades, and why won't you get bl ball when you have to go T3 anyway I also play 3 races, I ladder my toss along with my main race, zerg at diamond level and just started Terran and reached plat facing diamond players.
Zergs ended up countering the carrier/voidray transition. At least by "countering" I mean they could stop it, not saying they had an advantage. Zergs started fungaling the interceptors and getting rid of the BL's in favor of more corrupters. It used to be Zergs got rolled because as the game went later and later, they Zergs were morphing in more and more BL's, while fungal wasn't being actively used.
Pre-infestor era Zergs were whining but the matchup itself was fairly solid. Shakuras is a terrible example because it's imbalanced map wise. Pre-infestor era was infinitely more entertaining to watch and still generated fairly solid results balance wise, with Terran having a better win% barely imo simply due to the maps.
Pre-infestor era ZvP Zerg didn't know how to stop Protoss thirds, and many Zergs didn't have any early timings down and often didn't take as quick of a third (no gas). Completely different story. The game played out completely different, as Protoss generally teched specifically to either 2 or 3 base colossus with mass blink stalker/colossi. Half the time they opened up voidray and went voidray/stalker/colo (with sentries ofc). You're talking about an era where people didn't make mass spine walls to slow down the push even when they had 4k/2k banked and didn't have options to counter because they were on maps like Shakuras. Infestors definitely helped alleviate the problem, but there's no questions it was also largely in part caused by Zergs having less of a grasp of the game (and also thinking hydras were good to make vs protoss when they fucking blow).
|
It's really simple.
In BW, tech units supported base units, and allowed base units to be more effective in new scenarios and positions.
In SC2, for non-T races, base units support the tech units, and the tech units replace the core army roles that the base units used to hold.
|
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors.
|
4713 Posts
On November 05 2012 17:50 bokeevboke wrote:
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors.
I usually don't part take in balance discussions any more, because of how useless they are. However your assessment of balance and solutions have to be some of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.
You missed one key point of marines and why they are strong, its because of their micro potential, yes they do great damage, but they are so squishy that most of the time they won't survive long enough to do that damage, unless you micro them properly. Making them less micro intensive would just ruin the game, its terran vs any race, that keeps the game interesting and fun, stutter stepping, kitting, multi-pronged harass, drop harass, dodges, nothing compares to it.
The other point you miss is that, colossus and infestors have to be in the game, because the rest of the toss and zerg armies are shit due to other mechanics.
Toss GW units are usually shit because of both FF and GW, the strength of the units had to be nerfed so they wouldn't break them game due to these factors, as a result, until a certain upgrade threshold, GW units are garbage and toss is forced to stay on the defensive.
Meanwhile due to larva mechanics, zergs are forced for most of the game to have loads of cheep but very weak units. Again you can't change this, because it would be broken if zerg had more cost efficient units and was able to produce them in such large numbers so quickly due to larva.
This isn't a balance issue btw, its a DESIGN issue. Zerg is designed to be all about bulk until they get infestors and toss is designed around gimics to keep them in the game and/or give them offensive power. Change the stupid core design of the races, and while at it add more micro intensive units, or change existing ones to be more micro intensive. More units should be like the marine, crappy if un-microed, godly if properly microed.
|
On November 05 2012 17:50 bokeevboke wrote:
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors.
There are quite a few things that bother me about everything you said here.
1) Marines don't counter 90% of the units in the game, and the counters they do "well" against can only be achieved by micro.
2) Marines being "OP" are not the reason why Colossus and Fungal are in the game.
3) When you talk about versatility that can be said about every tier one unit in the gameexcept for the air-ground damage.
4) It would make sense that a biological unit would have good synergy with a Medivac.
5) All of your ideas would make marines basically unusable, or make another aspect broken. If you bring back medics then early bio pushes are too strong. If you reduce the healing effect of medivacs then the bio dies too fast. If you shorten the range of the marines then there is no way to push back any Stalker pressure. If you Rework the damage to 4(+2) light then it is incredibly difficult to kill anything with armor (Stalkers and Marauders would take TWO damage per shot......mix that with guardian shield and you better just bring out your squirt gun.).
|
On November 05 2012 17:50 bokeevboke wrote:
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors.
The fact that people still believe the Marine needs to be nerfed astonishes me.
How can Terran survive any early cheese esp vs Protoss with any of those changes?
|
On November 05 2012 18:04 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 17:50 bokeevboke wrote:
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors. I usually don't part take in balance discussions any more, because of how useless they are. However your assessment of balance and solutions have to be some of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. You missed one key point of marines and why they are strong, its because of their micro potential, yes they do great damage, but they are so squishy that most of the time they won't survive long enough to do that damage, unless you micro them properly. Making them less micro intensive would just ruin the game, its terran vs any race, that keeps the game interesting and fun, stutter stepping, kitting, multi-pronged harass, drop harass, dodges, nothing compares to it. The other point you miss is that, colossus and infestors have to be in the game, because the rest of the toss and zerg armies are shit due to other mechanics. Toss GW units are usually shit because of both FF and GW, the strength of the units had to be nerfed so they wouldn't break them game due to these factors, as a result, until a certain upgrade threshold, GW units are garbage and toss is forced to stay on the defensive. Meanwhile due to larva mechanics, zergs are forced for most of the game to have loads of cheep but very weak units. Again you can't change this, because it would be broken if zerg had more cost efficient units and was able to produce them in such large numbers so quickly due to larva. This isn't a balance issue btw, its a DESIGN issue. Zerg is designed to be all about bulk until they get infestors and toss is designed around gimics to keep them in the game and/or give them offensive power. Change the stupid core design of the races, and while at it add more micro intensive units, or change existing ones to be more micro intensive. More units should be like the marine, crappy if un-microed, godly if properly microed.
Can't agree more. There should be more units like the marines. Units like Lurkers , dumb dragoon and reaver are missing haha.
|
Infestors can "counter" marines without countering everything else. Just remove the slow - the damage remains unless you have like a million medivacs (which is fine, btw, since medivacs themselves are not a cheap unit and also take damage from fungal).
Colossi will always counter marines. In fact, as i stated in one of the HoTS threads, you can make colossi even more of a counter to marines and make them more of a microable unit.
|
On November 05 2012 18:04 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 17:50 bokeevboke wrote:
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors. I usually don't part take in balance discussions any more, because of how useless they are. However your assessment of balance and solutions have to be some of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. You missed one key point of marines and why they are strong, its because of their micro potential, yes they do great damage, but they are so squishy that most of the time they won't survive long enough to do that damage, unless you micro them properly. Making them less micro intensive would just ruin the game, its terran vs any race, that keeps the game interesting and fun, stutter stepping, kitting, multi-pronged harass, drop harass, dodges, nothing compares to it. The other point you miss is that, colossus and infestors have to be in the game, because the rest of the toss and zerg armies are shit due to other mechanics. Toss GW units are usually shit because of both FF and GW, the strength of the units had to be nerfed so they wouldn't break them game due to these factors, as a result, until a certain upgrade threshold, GW units are garbage and toss is forced to stay on the defensive. Meanwhile due to larva mechanics, zergs are forced for most of the game to have loads of cheep but very weak units. Again you can't change this, because it would be broken if zerg had more cost efficient units and was able to produce them in such large numbers so quickly due to larva. This isn't a balance issue btw, its a DESIGN issue. Zerg is designed to be all about bulk until they get infestors and toss is designed around gimics to keep them in the game and/or give them offensive power. Change the stupid core design of the races, and while at it add more micro intensive units, or change existing ones to be more micro intensive. More units should be like the marine, crappy if un-microed, godly if properly microed.
Pls keep discussion a bit more civil. No need to go insulting people.
Most of us kinda agree that infestors and colossi are horrible units, not necessarily OP, but they make the game a little too unfun and restrictive. We either want these units removed or reworked. In any way its gonna be nerf.
Lets take a hypothetical situation, suppose this: we removed colossi and infestor. What happens in PvZ matchup? More strategies will arise. Protoss air gonna be more viable, zerg can use hydralisks, and dynamic of matchup gonna change. PvP gonna be great. ZvZ still meh.
What happens in TvP and TvZ? Terrans will use just one strategy: Marine medivac. With a decent micro its quite enough vs everything. Except maybe Ultras, adding little marauders in the mix solves this problem. HT won't do much, since terran will pump out marines from 40 barracks non stop.
|
On November 05 2012 18:08 HuTSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 17:50 bokeevboke wrote:
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors. The fact that people still believe the Marine needs to be nerfed astonishes me. How can Terran survive any early cheese esp vs Protoss with any of those changes?
Change Reapers:
- remove cliff jumping, but integrate it into the Nitro Pack upgrade
- reduce Reaper build time or make it Reactor producable
- reduce Reaper gas cost maybe (in exchange for mineral cost? e.g. 75/25? needs testing)
-> nerf Marines
The only problem with Reapers and why they have been nerfed into uselessness is the early cliff jump ability. Take it away from them, but include it into the Nitro Pack Upgrade. Then buff Reapers again, especially the build time. Voila, Marines are not needed that badly anymore. Terran can choose to go with a Reaper/Marauder mix or Marines only. Each option has it's vulnerabilites though (no anti-air with R/M, squishy and not that good overall anymore with nerfed Marines only).
You can still use Reapers for harass, when you get the Upgrade.
|
On November 05 2012 17:32 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 14:38 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 14:15 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:34 Filter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:13 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 12:01 Chaggi wrote:On November 05 2012 11:52 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 10:50 TimENT wrote:
37 infestors in one game ----> is that okay blizzard?
Taeja struggles SOOOOO hard to barely win an engagement lategame v Rain, both floating 2500 min 1000 gas, rain warps in 48 supply worth of zealots in 1 second ----> is that okay blizzard?
Please stop complaining about PvT lategame. I saw that engagement. Taeja lost 16 ghosts right at the start and Rain still got storms off. Plus, Terran has had better win rate vs P in August, throughout WCS continental tournaments, and at MLG this weekend. This is stupid. Anyone who pulls out win rates and calls something balanced doesn't understand what people are complaining about. PvZ might have a close to 50% win rate but it doesn't matter cause it's not a balanced late game composition. Even Grubby said so on the front page during an interview in this last MLG, look at how people win, if all Protoss does is all in, and they win 90% of the time, while if Zerg gets their late game bl/infestor comp and they win 90% of the time, how does that make for a fun game? (and this is balance aside) Just like TvP, it's not too bad to kill a Protoss sub 4 bases, but after the 4th and 5th base comes up, it gets much harder for the Terran. Just cause you can be like but look Taeja did something wrong doesn't mean it's actually not that hard, but it's cause of some mistake. But it was. And that's not true at all. By that point in the game Terran can trade scvs for more army because they can mine minerals with MULEs as long as they build extra OCs. And how is using winrates less evidence than some dude pulling one engagement out of thin air and claiming balance based on that. I can show you a lategame engagement from one of my games where the Terran doesn't attempt any semblance of micro, misses EMPs and sits in storms and claim Terran lategame is imba against Protoss. That doesn't mean im right. If Colossus are in the picture you actually can't show that engagement, it doesn't exist. The problem is a lot of things frustrate the players ie. you, me and the pros because they is no response available at all for you to defend against some things in the game. Terran doesn't have a response to a mass Protoss late game warp in, it's not a gradual loss you just get smashed and it's frustrating as hell. The same thing applies to Toss players when they get steamrolled by marines, if your higher tech units are taken out there is nothing you can do but get absolutely rolled by 40 marines with stim. The same thing applies with infestor broodlord, you do everything you can to stop it but at some point a fungal lands and you may as well take your hands off the keyboard. There is no response left, it's over. The less control you have over something the more frustrating it tends to become. Mistakes should be punished, but at the same time you should feel like your opponent did something good to punish your mistake. Having your entire army mowed down because you couldn't snipe off 10 ht AND emp the Archons AND control your vikings perfectly is very frustrating. At what point did the protoss player do anything in that particular battle to outplay or outthink you? the simple answer is he didn't, he landed 1-2 storms and a-moved his army. The loss of control in those situations is why Terran players bitch so much about lategame TvP, and why many of us simply don't play that much. When a Zerg gets crushed by an immortal all in it's the same story, the Protoss player might have hit all his timings perfectly but the Zerg is totally helpless and relies on the Toss player making a mistake. Same thing with lategame PvZ, trying to get your mothership into position only to have your opponent spreading his stuff out properly means you're screwed and the game is completely out of your control, again frustrating. Removing and balancing things that are extremely frustrating is very important, it really doesn't matter if the matchup is overall very balanced if certain situations make you want to alt-f4 your game and play something else. Terran Orbital Economy lategame is quite possibly the strongest lategame, except possibly Infestor/Broodlord, simply because the Terran's army size can be 40-50 greater than the opponent. The issue has always been for Terran to reach that lategame. It's comparable to how the Protoss midgame is much weaker than the Terran midgame, and the challenge for the Protoss player is to get to the lategame without the Terran winning. There are already Terran players experimenting with this style: Kas, for example. I think it would be much wiser to wait and see how the professionals manage to play this out. Right now, the win rates are stable, so it's not like Terran is under some massive threat like Protoss was during sAviOr's reign. Any advantage that Protoss has before 10 minutes and after 16 minutes is clearly mitigated by the Terran advantage between those two milestones. All in all? No concerns about the matchup. Just want to let it play out. Please link to win rates. To speak bluntly, win rates are posted on the general forum every month. If you are too disconnected with the scene and with the community to know where to find those easily, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread.
Oh, I thought you actually had evidence. Last month's TvZ win rate in Korea was 36% for Terran as posted earlier in this thread. I really don't see how the win rates are stable in that respect, that's why I asked you for evidence. I don't like it when people make up their own facts.
|
On November 05 2012 17:34 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 15:01 Xiphias wrote:I think one of the main reason for imbalance and also the reason for why people are saying that BW is better than SC2 is well formulated here: http://day9.tv/d/saddar/hardcounters-in-sc2/ Why must mauraders have so much extra vs armored? Same for immortals. Yes, we need spesilized units but if we just tweak the numbers a little instead of giving a unit dubble damage vs something spesific we get a more well rounded game. The only real hard-counter should be air vs things that can't shoot up.... This is silly. Look at Vultures. 5 damage against Ultra, 20 against Zergling. Siege Tank: 70 against Ultra, 35 against Zergling. This has no relevance to balance in either game.
Thats not the point actually. Vultures and tanks weren't excessively good at killing their special type enemies. Their damage type was more of 'restriction' than 'bonus'.
For example: Marauders do quite well against unarmored units and destroy armored units. BW tanks are terrible against small units and above average against big units. Feel the difference?
|
4713 Posts
First, I'm attacking his idea, not him, if I find his idea stupid there is no need to sugar coat it, me and many others have pointed out why it was not well thought out.
You're making an assumption based on the current unit stats, if Colossus and Infestor where removed, so many more other things would need to be re-worked that it makes it impossible to predict how the MUs would look. No one in his right mind would just remove Colossus and Infestors without buffing and compensating the races in some other ways.
I agree that the MUs would look a lot like bio-medivac vs toss (no vikings required any more), and marine-tank medivac vs ling, bling muta (the old go to composition), but again this is assuming the only changes done are Colossus and Infestor being removed.
I won't bother going into the hundreds of potential changes needed to re-work toss and zerg if both those units are removed, or the wide implications on gameplay that will have, that is a topic of its own.
|
On November 05 2012 19:15 Destructicon wrote:
First, I'm attacking his idea, not him, if I find his idea stupid there is no need to sugar coat it, me and many others have pointed out why it was not well thought out.
You're making an assumption based on the current unit stats, if Colossus and Infestor where removed, so many more other things would need to be re-worked that it makes it impossible to predict how the MUs would look. No one in his right mind would just remove Colossus and Infestors without buffing and compensating the races in some other ways.
I agree that the MUs would look a lot like bio-medivac vs toss (no vikings required any more), and marine-tank medivac vs ling, bling muta (the old go to composition), but again this is assuming the only changes done are Colossus and Infestor being removed.
I won't bother going into the hundreds of potential changes needed to re-work toss and zerg if both those units are removed, or the wide implications on gameplay that will have, that is a topic of its own.
To sum up, you're against drastic changes. We don't know whats gonna happen if we remove a unit or two, even if we do the most sophisticate analyze. I understand it. Thats why I said hypothetical, to make my example more clear. I don't necessarily suggest it, and my suggestions might be all bullshit. But again, I was just pointing that marines cause some balance issues in TvZ and TvP. As follows: Terrans have marines, P and Z can't beat them with regular units, lets give them some aoe units, ok, now give terran units that counter that aoe units and so on. And every game boils down to same compositions.
Which I think is kinda a problem.
In what way we should change them is another story, which can't be decided by me or anyone in under 10 min thinking.
|
I think what people here are forgetting:
Due to the lack of reproducing lost army supply (unlike P or Z) Terran units have to be cost effective.
P and Z can remax/rebuild units way faster than T (best examples are Rain at MLG -> losing all Colossi and making 25 chargelots to simply overrun the Terran)
Nerfing the Marine is not the issue at all since Marines can be countered by many units.
|
When the best player of the world plays so beautifully that you start taking notes, then plays so well that you stop taking notes and admire his play, and then loses decisively against no split attackmove + infested terrans + admittedly well timed transfuses...
then you get the urge to balance whine xD
seriously one final balance patch for WoL is needed, and i do not get why blizzard thinks it is appropriate to ignore the infestor, yeah yeah hots, hots is not out, hots is not the current esport, and zerg is just not balanced as it is.
|
On November 05 2012 18:04 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 17:50 bokeevboke wrote:
Marines are quite a big problem when balancing the game. Most people seem to overlook that.
- Marines counter 90% units in the game. They're even good against some units that supposed to counter them: reaper, helion, baneling, archon.
- Therefore blizzard has to keep colossi and infestors in the game . And make them strong enough to be able to match marines. Hence we have OP lasers and fungal.
Why marines are so strong? its not because their stats, which are average actually. Its because:
- Versatility. Marines can do everything, harass, antiharass, main army fights, air-ground damage, cheese and unlimited micro potential.
- Cheap. Marines are basically free with mules (said by Jinro btw)
- Good synergy with Medivacs, potential to drop and etc.
What I suggest:
Since we cannot touch marines stats (which are average) we could do one of these:
- Change medivacs to dropships and bring back medics.
- Reduce the healing effect on medivacs.
- Shorten the range (4) and make a lategame upgrade (+1).
- Rework the damage 4 (+2 vs light).
These all changes should make marines less versatile.
And Now you can proceed to nerf or remove Colossi and infestors. I usually don't part take in balance discussions any more, because of how useless they are. However your assessment of balance and solutions have to be some of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. You missed one key point of marines and why they are strong, its because of their micro potential, yes they do great damage, but they are so squishy that most of the time they won't survive long enough to do that damage, unless you micro them properly. Making them less micro intensive would just ruin the game, its terran vs any race, that keeps the game interesting and fun, stutter stepping, kitting, multi-pronged harass, drop harass, dodges, nothing compares to it.
That still makes them counter the units. Agreed, only when used correctly. But it still means that they counter a lot.
90% is probably an exaggeration, but imo this is the complete list of units that counter properly controlled marines:
Colossus, Siege Tank, Hellion
Stormtemplar, Infestor - though only in bigger battles
Broodlord, Battlecruiser, Archon, Reaper - Supply for Supply; Cost for Cost Marines beat those units
Baneling - Supply for Supply on Creep;
On November 05 2012 18:04 Destructicon wrote:
The other point you miss is that, colossus and infestors have to be in the game, because the rest of the toss and zerg armies are shit due to other mechanics.
Toss GW units are usually shit because of both FF and GW, the strength of the units had to be nerfed so they wouldn't break them game due to these factors, as a result, until a certain upgrade threshold, GW units are garbage and toss is forced to stay on the defensive.
Meanwhile due to larva mechanics, zergs are forced for most of the game to have loads of cheep but very weak units. Again you can't change this, because it would be broken if zerg had more cost efficient units and was able to produce them in such large numbers so quickly due to larva.
This isn't a balance issue btw, its a DESIGN issue. Zerg is designed to be all about bulk until they get infestors and toss is designed around gimics to keep them in the game and/or give them offensive power. Change the stupid core design of the races, and while at it add more micro intensive units, or change existing ones to be more micro intensive. More units should be like the marine, crappy if un-microed, godly if properly microed.
Your assumption about gateway units being weak becaus of FF and WG is just plainly wrong. Sentries were strong in the WoL-beta... so they nerfed Sentries. Warpgate allins were strong. So they nerfed Warpgates. Similarily: blink timings were too strong... they nerfed blink.
But: they never nerfed GW units because of WG or FF.
Even more, in PvT and PvP, forcefields are basically only used if a Protoss wants to do something greedy behind. The only occasion in which it was figuered out - opposed to designed! - that FFs are vital, because there is nothing else, is roachplay.
For Warpgate... as said, anytime there was a problem, timings were nerfed, not units. You can easily compare BW and SC2 unit stats and you will find out that gateway units basically have the same stats as the prdecessors.
And yes, more units should be like the marine and the infestor. Crappy if un-microed, godly if properly microed.
But, there have to be ways to micro against micro. Zerg/Protoss cannot micro against marinemicro (off creep), because of the speed and range of marines (and the range of siege tanks) - which makes marines (or Marine/Tank) something that has to be overrun. T/P cannot micro against Infestors, because of the range and effect of Fungal Growth (and range of Broodlords), which makes Infestors (or Infestor/Broodlord) something that has to be overrun.
Similarily for Colossi, Immortals and Sentries (to a lesser extend for blink stalkers, because you cannot snipe them).
The basic problem is simply, that there are way too many core compositions/units for all races that have to be overrun, instead of fought in a back-and-forth battle.
|
On November 05 2012 17:32 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 14:38 SlixSC wrote:On November 05 2012 14:15 Acritter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:34 Filter wrote:On November 05 2012 12:13 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 12:01 Chaggi wrote:On November 05 2012 11:52 Wingblade wrote:On November 05 2012 10:50 TimENT wrote:
37 infestors in one game ----> is that okay blizzard?
Taeja struggles SOOOOO hard to barely win an engagement lategame v Rain, both floating 2500 min 1000 gas, rain warps in 48 supply worth of zealots in 1 second ----> is that okay blizzard?
Please stop complaining about PvT lategame. I saw that engagement. Taeja lost 16 ghosts right at the start and Rain still got storms off. Plus, Terran has had better win rate vs P in August, throughout WCS continental tournaments, and at MLG this weekend. This is stupid. Anyone who pulls out win rates and calls something balanced doesn't understand what people are complaining about. PvZ might have a close to 50% win rate but it doesn't matter cause it's not a balanced late game composition. Even Grubby said so on the front page during an interview in this last MLG, look at how people win, if all Protoss does is all in, and they win 90% of the time, while if Zerg gets their late game bl/infestor comp and they win 90% of the time, how does that make for a fun game? (and this is balance aside) Just like TvP, it's not too bad to kill a Protoss sub 4 bases, but after the 4th and 5th base comes up, it gets much harder for the Terran. Just cause you can be like but look Taeja did something wrong doesn't mean it's actually not that hard, but it's cause of some mistake. But it was. And that's not true at all. By that point in the game Terran can trade scvs for more army because they can mine minerals with MULEs as long as they build extra OCs. And how is using winrates less evidence than some dude pulling one engagement out of thin air and claiming balance based on that. I can show you a lategame engagement from one of my games where the Terran doesn't attempt any semblance of micro, misses EMPs and sits in storms and claim Terran lategame is imba against Protoss. That doesn't mean im right. If Colossus are in the picture you actually can't show that engagement, it doesn't exist. The problem is a lot of things frustrate the players ie. you, me and the pros because they is no response available at all for you to defend against some things in the game. Terran doesn't have a response to a mass Protoss late game warp in, it's not a gradual loss you just get smashed and it's frustrating as hell. The same thing applies to Toss players when they get steamrolled by marines, if your higher tech units are taken out there is nothing you can do but get absolutely rolled by 40 marines with stim. The same thing applies with infestor broodlord, you do everything you can to stop it but at some point a fungal lands and you may as well take your hands off the keyboard. There is no response left, it's over. The less control you have over something the more frustrating it tends to become. Mistakes should be punished, but at the same time you should feel like your opponent did something good to punish your mistake. Having your entire army mowed down because you couldn't snipe off 10 ht AND emp the Archons AND control your vikings perfectly is very frustrating. At what point did the protoss player do anything in that particular battle to outplay or outthink you? the simple answer is he didn't, he landed 1-2 storms and a-moved his army. The loss of control in those situations is why Terran players bitch so much about lategame TvP, and why many of us simply don't play that much. When a Zerg gets crushed by an immortal all in it's the same story, the Protoss player might have hit all his timings perfectly but the Zerg is totally helpless and relies on the Toss player making a mistake. Same thing with lategame PvZ, trying to get your mothership into position only to have your opponent spreading his stuff out properly means you're screwed and the game is completely out of your control, again frustrating. Removing and balancing things that are extremely frustrating is very important, it really doesn't matter if the matchup is overall very balanced if certain situations make you want to alt-f4 your game and play something else. Terran Orbital Economy lategame is quite possibly the strongest lategame, except possibly Infestor/Broodlord, simply because the Terran's army size can be 40-50 greater than the opponent. The issue has always been for Terran to reach that lategame. It's comparable to how the Protoss midgame is much weaker than the Terran midgame, and the challenge for the Protoss player is to get to the lategame without the Terran winning. There are already Terran players experimenting with this style: Kas, for example. I think it would be much wiser to wait and see how the professionals manage to play this out. Right now, the win rates are stable, so it's not like Terran is under some massive threat like Protoss was during sAviOr's reign. Any advantage that Protoss has before 10 minutes and after 16 minutes is clearly mitigated by the Terran advantage between those two milestones. All in all? No concerns about the matchup. Just want to let it play out. Please link to win rates. To speak bluntly, win rates are posted on the general forum every month. If you are too disconnected with the scene and with the community to know where to find those easily, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread.
Seems to me that you are the one disconnected since we dont have winrates for last 2 months. But good job stating that winrates are stable without actual winrates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
