|
A bit of copypasta from another TL thread (credits to Saechiis)
2 Zergs and 2 Protosses think a race other than their own is overpowered, shocking.
The MULE is the more forgiving of the three macro mechanics in essence that you can instantly spend your energy when you've been sloppy in your macro. Unfortunately though, you can't just look at it in a vacuum.
First of all, the MULE isn't some kind of bonus on top of even economies. Terran is the only race that can't power harvesters, which is kind of key in an economy based RTS. SCV's will always take 17 seconds to build and can be only built 1 at a time per CC. Compare that to Zerg who can built multiple drones at a time and Protoss that can cut down probe build time by 10 seconds per chronoboost, and you'll see that Terran will inevitably lag behind in worker production, and consequently income. Hence the Terran macro mechanic, the MULE, which exists to counteract the disparity in mining workers.
The reason that the MULE is more forgiving a macro mechanic in forgetting it, is because Terran macro itself is the most unforgiving of the three races. Since Zerg and Protoss have macro mechanics that boost production it's easier for them to boost out units to spend their money excesses. Terran production can only be boosted by building more production facilities which inevitably means that you can't spend your money if you haven't been macro'ing well. If you're floating 5k gas you can't spend it instantly to morph all your larvae into Ultra's, you can only build a bunch of extra factories/ starports/ add-ons and wait 60 seconds before you can start using them to produce actual units. And once you've burned through your excess gas by building more production facilities than you can actually support from your income ,you're stuck with expensive idle buildings.
Sure it seems overpowered when a bad macroíng Terran throws down 8 MULE's and matches his opponents mineral income with it for their 90 second duration. But he can't actually pour that money immediately into units. He's just now getting the money he would have gotten during the 8x 90 seconds before if he had macroed well.
Overall, Terran's slower worker production combined with the MULE's ability of ignoring mineral saturation means that Terrans overall stay on 1 base longer, which gives many noobs the idea that "Terran can just 1-base forever since MULE's give infinity minerals".
|
On August 22 2011 03:02 Barkziee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 03:01 eloist wrote:On August 22 2011 02:58 Figgy wrote:On August 22 2011 02:55 eloist wrote:On August 22 2011 02:43 Figgy wrote:
I think the changes to Protoss are obvious to fix this 1-1-1 and ghost problem.
Un-nerf warpgates, and un-nerf warp-in HTs.
Terran 1-1-1s? Die to 4 gate. Also Zergs won't be able to do insanely greedy things they have been doing since the warpgate changes.
Late Game PvT? Back to how it was before, balanced.
Talk about a one sided perspective. All this changes had merit. Sure, they had merit. But now Terran and Zerg are free to tech up and expand to whatever they want without any issue of dying in the early game. This is the reason the 1-1-1 is so effective, because it now survives rushes without any problems. Also, with Terrans becoming insanely better at micro late game PvT is starting to become a huge joke. Ghosts outrange and out utility High Templars in a huge way. Builds like 3 gate pressure are still difficult for me to deal with when I play terran, it's not as clear cut as you present it. Protoss late game is very vulnerable to ghost now as it stands I agree. However, the way to go is not to un-fix all those other issues but open up another path such as making carrier play more viable. Would make chronoboost useful late game as well. Chrono is already useful late game, you chrono shit and it happens faster.
except that its kinda useless lategame, since all your research will be done and you'll rarely be producing anything other than gateway units after maxing.
|
On August 22 2011 03:01 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 02:58 Figgy wrote:On August 22 2011 02:55 eloist wrote:On August 22 2011 02:43 Figgy wrote:
I think the changes to Protoss are obvious to fix this 1-1-1 and ghost problem.
Un-nerf warpgates, and un-nerf warp-in HTs.
Terran 1-1-1s? Die to 4 gate. Also Zergs won't be able to do insanely greedy things they have been doing since the warpgate changes.
Late Game PvT? Back to how it was before, balanced.
Talk about a one sided perspective. All this changes had merit. Sure, they had merit. But now Terran and Zerg are free to tech up and expand to whatever they want without any issue of dying in the early game. This is the reason the 1-1-1 is so effective, because it now survives rushes without any problems. Also, with Terrans becoming insanely better at micro late game PvT is starting to become a huge joke. Ghosts outrange and out utility High Templars in a huge way. It was a much funnier joke when protoss was invulnerable to drops after a certain point in the game, and was able to whittle down a terran army to red and orange health (even with good storm dodging) by the time terran reached toss base. And sure, ghosts >>> templar, but blizzard never said that the spellcasters of each race were meant to be similarly powerful.
but u know whats funnier ? 1 medivac full of MM destroying half of protoss tech tree or the nexus.
also, its already established that MM > gateway units, and now you imply that terran spell casters are more powerful than protoss.. so we have an imbalance
|
On August 22 2011 03:01 eloist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 02:58 Figgy wrote:On August 22 2011 02:55 eloist wrote:On August 22 2011 02:43 Figgy wrote:
I think the changes to Protoss are obvious to fix this 1-1-1 and ghost problem.
Un-nerf warpgates, and un-nerf warp-in HTs.
Terran 1-1-1s? Die to 4 gate. Also Zergs won't be able to do insanely greedy things they have been doing since the warpgate changes.
Late Game PvT? Back to how it was before, balanced.
Talk about a one sided perspective. All this changes had merit. Sure, they had merit. But now Terran and Zerg are free to tech up and expand to whatever they want without any issue of dying in the early game. This is the reason the 1-1-1 is so effective, because it now survives rushes without any problems. Also, with Terrans becoming insanely better at micro late game PvT is starting to become a huge joke. Ghosts outrange and out utility High Templars in a huge way. Builds like 3 gate pressure are still difficult for me to deal with when I play terran, it's not as clear cut as you present it.
I'm sorry to be so bluntly, but nobody cares how much trouble YOU have with a situation.
It's about the highest level. So your personal experience and the perceived difficulty in dealing with a situation doesn't matter at all.
|
On August 22 2011 03:01 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 02:58 Figgy wrote:On August 22 2011 02:55 eloist wrote:On August 22 2011 02:43 Figgy wrote:
I think the changes to Protoss are obvious to fix this 1-1-1 and ghost problem.
Un-nerf warpgates, and un-nerf warp-in HTs.
Terran 1-1-1s? Die to 4 gate. Also Zergs won't be able to do insanely greedy things they have been doing since the warpgate changes.
Late Game PvT? Back to how it was before, balanced.
Talk about a one sided perspective. All this changes had merit. Sure, they had merit. But now Terran and Zerg are free to tech up and expand to whatever they want without any issue of dying in the early game. This is the reason the 1-1-1 is so effective, because it now survives rushes without any problems. Also, with Terrans becoming insanely better at micro late game PvT is starting to become a huge joke. Ghosts outrange and out utility High Templars in a huge way. It was a much funnier joke when protoss was invulnerable to drops after a certain point in the game, and was able to whittle down a terran army to red and orange health (even with good storm dodging) by the time terran reached toss base. And sure, ghosts >>> templar, but blizzard never said that the spellcasters of each race were meant to be similarly powerful.
Compare the cost of ghosts to the cost of templar (buildings, upgrades and unit costs).
Also the crucial point is that because of the pathetic weakness of gateway armies, toss needs AOE to survive once medivac come out.
Ghosts are more of an icing on the cake, especially because storms can be dodged as well as countered through EMP.
Templar (or collossus) form THE crucial part of a mid/late game protoss army, which is why removing them is so painful.
|
On August 22 2011 03:04 Bagi wrote:
Ghosts are like the ultimate anti-templar unit, saying that ghosts counter templars is like saying roaches counter zealots. Its intended.
Thats why protoss has the colossus option and can juggle between the two techpaths.
So the only way to win PvT is supposed to be tricking the Terran by tech changing?
Terrans know the timings well now, and they know how to beat collo armies easily. Now that they're beating templar armies easily too, it's getting really ugly.
|
On August 22 2011 03:03 branflakes14 wrote:
I think exploring Fleet Bacon tech should be the top priority for Protoss players at the moment since it's just about all there really is left. Remember, while Carrier damage output is quite frankly pretty shitty and they can take a long time to get, Interceptors have 3.2 health per 1 mineral (the nearest any other unit has is the Zealot with 1.5 per mineral) and seriously mess up Marine AI if they can't reach the Carrier (which has a maximum of 14 range). Interceptors are practically a huge cheap damage shield against Marines.
Except when the marines kill them all almost instantly. Interceptors do not rebuild very fast at all. And since a good terran will never let a storm go off due to EMP, you can't storm those marines away either. And terrible carrier DPS, as you mentioned. 4 marines have more DPS than a carrier, so even if you do kill most of them, just a few can clean up a carrier. This is why carriers are terrible units atm.
|
ghosts are not only the ultimate anti-templar unit.. they are the ultimate anti-protoss unit
|
On August 22 2011 03:08 Fig wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 03:03 branflakes14 wrote:
I think exploring Fleet Bacon tech should be the top priority for Protoss players at the moment since it's just about all there really is left. Remember, while Carrier damage output is quite frankly pretty shitty and they can take a long time to get, Interceptors have 3.2 health per 1 mineral (the nearest any other unit has is the Zealot with 1.5 per mineral) and seriously mess up Marine AI if they can't reach the Carrier (which has a maximum of 14 range). Interceptors are practically a huge cheap damage shield against Marines. Except when the marines kill them all almost instantly. Interceptors do not rebuild very fast at all. And since a good terran will never let a storm go off due to EMP, you can't storm those marines away either. And terrible carrier DPS, as you mentioned. 4 marines have more DPS than a carrier, so even if you do kill most of them, just a few can clean up a carrier. This is why carriers are terrible units atm.
Fleet Beacon tech is not the answer to the Marine.
|
On August 22 2011 03:08 Veritassong wrote:
ghosts are not only the ultimate anti-templar unit.. they are the ultimate anti-protoss unit
At least put some effort into it.
|
Have you seen MC use a warp prism?
|
On August 22 2011 03:04 Veritassong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 03:01 TheAntZ wrote:On August 22 2011 02:58 Figgy wrote:On August 22 2011 02:55 eloist wrote:On August 22 2011 02:43 Figgy wrote:
I think the changes to Protoss are obvious to fix this 1-1-1 and ghost problem.
Un-nerf warpgates, and un-nerf warp-in HTs.
Terran 1-1-1s? Die to 4 gate. Also Zergs won't be able to do insanely greedy things they have been doing since the warpgate changes.
Late Game PvT? Back to how it was before, balanced.
Talk about a one sided perspective. All this changes had merit. Sure, they had merit. But now Terran and Zerg are free to tech up and expand to whatever they want without any issue of dying in the early game. This is the reason the 1-1-1 is so effective, because it now survives rushes without any problems. Also, with Terrans becoming insanely better at micro late game PvT is starting to become a huge joke. Ghosts outrange and out utility High Templars in a huge way. It was a much funnier joke when protoss was invulnerable to drops after a certain point in the game, and was able to whittle down a terran army to red and orange health (even with good storm dodging) by the time terran reached toss base. And sure, ghosts >>> templar, but blizzard never said that the spellcasters of each race were meant to be similarly powerful. but u know whats funnier ? 1 medivac full of MM destroying half of protoss tech tree or the nexus. also, its already established that MM > gateway units, and now you imply that terran spell casters are more powerful than protoss.. so we have an imbalance
Just because I feel that ghosts are more powerful spellcasters than templar doesnt mean its true 
and even if it were true, balance isnt as cut and dry as that
As silly as it seems, I feel like a mixture of gateway/colossus/templar is the answer to fighting on equal ground with MMMG, rather than just gateway/templar
|
On August 22 2011 03:10 Shucks! wrote:
Have you seen MC use a warp prism?
Yeah it got sniped by marines.
|
On August 22 2011 03:07 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 03:04 Bagi wrote:
Ghosts are like the ultimate anti-templar unit, saying that ghosts counter templars is like saying roaches counter zealots. Its intended.
Thats why protoss has the colossus option and can juggle between the two techpaths. So the only way to win PvT is supposed to be tricking the Terran by tech changing? Terrans know the timings well now, and they know how to beat collo armies easily. Now that they're beating templar armies easily too, it's getting really ugly.
Yes, tech changing is a very good way to catch a terran off guard. Calling it a "trick" is a little misleading when zergs do it all the time with their hive units. Eventually you'll have both, and storm + colossi is so much AOE you better have the perfect engagement as terran.
Also, saying that colossus and templar armies are "easy to beat" and terrans "know the timings" is just a load of generic bullshit that people spew when they can't think of a real argument. Both of these army compositions work just fine and the games always come down to who has the better micro/engagement/upgrades/etc.
|
On August 22 2011 03:08 Fig wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 03:03 branflakes14 wrote:
I think exploring Fleet Bacon tech should be the top priority for Protoss players at the moment since it's just about all there really is left. Remember, while Carrier damage output is quite frankly pretty shitty and they can take a long time to get, Interceptors have 3.2 health per 1 mineral (the nearest any other unit has is the Zealot with 1.5 per mineral) and seriously mess up Marine AI if they can't reach the Carrier (which has a maximum of 14 range). Interceptors are practically a huge cheap damage shield against Marines. Except when the marines kill them all almost instantly. Interceptors do not rebuild very fast at all. And since a good terran will never let a storm go off due to EMP, you can't storm those marines away either. And terrible carrier DPS, as you mentioned. 4 marines have more DPS than a carrier, so even if you do kill most of them, just a few can clean up a carrier. This is why carriers are terrible units atm.
I always see protoss people say this, but can't you just have stalkers and obs in front of the HTs? Then at least he can't cloak and get a perfect emp, and that means you'll get storms off a good amount of the time.
|
This is why EMP was so late in the tech tree and on such an expensive and hard to produce unit in BW. The SC2 terran equivalent is tech lab then ghost academy. (You can get ghost cloaking faster than banshee cloaking)
That would be the same as getting my HTs with already researched storms after making half a cybernetics core and a twilight council.
Terran tech is way too easy to get in this game, making them far more versatile than the other races. I mean seriously, Terran's strongest all-in vs protoss gives them access to almost ALL of their tech? The comparison to 4 gate is just laughable.
|
what do you guys think of moving warp prism speed to the nexus as a 100/100 upgrade only after a robo/core have been created?
Then you could do robo/twilight builds but you dont need a robfac to get the measly upgrade without investing too much and feeling "required" to make collosus. Also you could rush the upgrade as you make your first two immortals and that would make a new 2 immortal dropship speed timing attack for P
(we need reliable harassment as P IMO)
|
On August 22 2011 03:14 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 03:08 Fig wrote:On August 22 2011 03:03 branflakes14 wrote:
I think exploring Fleet Bacon tech should be the top priority for Protoss players at the moment since it's just about all there really is left. Remember, while Carrier damage output is quite frankly pretty shitty and they can take a long time to get, Interceptors have 3.2 health per 1 mineral (the nearest any other unit has is the Zealot with 1.5 per mineral) and seriously mess up Marine AI if they can't reach the Carrier (which has a maximum of 14 range). Interceptors are practically a huge cheap damage shield against Marines. Except when the marines kill them all almost instantly. Interceptors do not rebuild very fast at all. And since a good terran will never let a storm go off due to EMP, you can't storm those marines away either. And terrible carrier DPS, as you mentioned. 4 marines have more DPS than a carrier, so even if you do kill most of them, just a few can clean up a carrier. This is why carriers are terrible units atm. I always see protoss people say this, but can't you just have stalkers and obs in front of the HTs? Then at least he can't cloak and get a perfect emp, and that means you'll get storms off a good amount of the time.
In theory yes. It's incredibly hard though - even MC can't reliably do it, though that's basically what he tries to do. Or did before this WP stuff.
Although while this in theory can hold the ghosts at bay, it doesn't help with actually engaging. How are you supposed to actually attack?
Non-1/1/1 PvT may well be balanced atm but its still brutally, brutally unforgiving to the toss. Terran can make far bigger mistakes and get away with it. I dunno if that's OK.
|
On August 22 2011 03:14 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 03:08 Fig wrote:On August 22 2011 03:03 branflakes14 wrote:
I think exploring Fleet Bacon tech should be the top priority for Protoss players at the moment since it's just about all there really is left. Remember, while Carrier damage output is quite frankly pretty shitty and they can take a long time to get, Interceptors have 3.2 health per 1 mineral (the nearest any other unit has is the Zealot with 1.5 per mineral) and seriously mess up Marine AI if they can't reach the Carrier (which has a maximum of 14 range). Interceptors are practically a huge cheap damage shield against Marines. Except when the marines kill them all almost instantly. Interceptors do not rebuild very fast at all. And since a good terran will never let a storm go off due to EMP, you can't storm those marines away either. And terrible carrier DPS, as you mentioned. 4 marines have more DPS than a carrier, so even if you do kill most of them, just a few can clean up a carrier. This is why carriers are terrible units atm. I always see protoss people say this, but can't you just have stalkers and obs in front of the HTs? Then at least he can't cloak and get a perfect emp, and that means you'll get storms off a good amount of the time.
I almost forgot ghosts could cloak! One scan reveals the observer and three ghost shots take it out. Meanwhile even if the stalkers get some shots off, they take 10 to kill one ghost.
|
On August 22 2011 03:14 Fig wrote:
That would be the same as getting my HTs with already researched storms after making half a cybernetics core and a twilight council.
It's really not the same. EMP is a great spell but it can't in fact kill anything.
EMP gets really good when there are actually units with energy out - which you are saying comes late. So it's not really important that EMP can be gotten early. Much like it is a non issue that you can get a 'powerful' unit like the immortal early because there isn't much out at the time that it actually counters. Except for sentries but if you have a ton of sentries you are probably playing greedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
