|
On June 14 2013 00:35 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 00:25 Elldar wrote:
The immortal is the epitome of the counter-mentality in sc2 imo. Not enough that it deals extra damage to armored it negates damage over 10 to 10 which pretty much all armored units does. It's a niche idea with the sole purpose of anti-tank. If the hardened shield was an ability that lasts 5 seconds it would had been okay. But now you can not change the immortal without disturbing balance so there is not much to do. I disagree. From WoL to HotS, blizzard already showed that you can plainly buff units (medivac, mutalisk, voidray, hydralisk, phoenix, ultralisk) and then repair any overpoweredness with 1-2 simple tricks. I don't see why this wouldn't work with the immortal as well. I mean, the buffs from above were all to a certain extend kind of "we just want to try this, because it sounds great". And afterwards they turned out to work. The Immortal is one of ~15 Protoss units. And a damage change is a change to one of its ~5-10 important stats. In the great scheme, it's very hard to actually break the game with one somewhat thoughtthrough and pretested change.
because the buff those units received is not just accompanied by those buffs, also in regarding to the new units that are available.
the last time something as big as these changes happened was that fungal change in WoL and kinda changed the entire SC2 zerg matchups for the better or worse
|
On June 14 2013 01:07 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 00:36 Prog455 wrote:On June 13 2013 20:26 Big J wrote:On June 12 2013 12:33 SirPinky wrote:On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin. As a high master Terran player I agree with many of your points, but I have to draw the line when I hear, "The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate". When was the last time you saw 2 rax pushes? Proxy Maurader? Fast Banshee (w/o Cloak)? Or a one base all-in from Terran? The mothership core has made toss very greedy, almost too greedy. I think the fact that some Toss are having a hard time is they rely too much on the MSC. And when they finally see a soft 12 marine push with only a stalker and a MSC they cry when everything is not held. In addition, as a mech Terran, I've beat so many toss with early helion "run by" b/c their MSC is out trying to snag a SCV or two. Some Toss just have this complex "If I have a MSC I can't be harmed". And "Look! I can even run around the map and kill things without any repercussions." I don't get why you think it's greedy to have "only" 225/150 worth of units against 600/0 worth of units, as long as you have all sorts of defenders advantages. Sure, it's not a question of costcomparison whether this is greedy play or not, but having one stalker and one MsC with enough energy for a Nexus Canon AND a warp gate, capable of immidiatly warping in another stalker AND something else on the way (like your first immortal) AND the ability to pull workers sounds like pretty safe play to me at a time when an opponent can only have 12marines attacking. (assuming you use your stuff properly, kite/scout the marines early with your stalker etc.) And the complex you talk about is known as "medivac complex".  The difference is the time required to build a Terran army that can do even light pressure to Protoss. A single Gateway + MsC can fend off far stronger pushes than a single Barrack, or even two Barracks. EDIT: I know that the races are not supposed to be equal, asymmetrical balance and all that, but Terran was actually supposed to be the stronger race in early game between Protoss and Terran, and right now it is quite the other way around. No, Terran was not "supposed to be" the stronger race. The game was supposed to be fun and balanced. That due to each race working differently (asymetric design) there would be times and timings in which one race could be considered "stronger" in certain aspects of the game is obvious. That's it. No race was supposed to be generally stronger at a certain time, than the other race. It just happens so that they sometimes are.
Blizzard has mentioned numerous times that Terran is stronger during the early stages of the game, and that it is Terrans job to crippling damage to Protoss before they reach their end game Deathball. Whether this was a smart approach to the game is debatable, but it was their intention nevertheless. Protoss is still stronger than Terran lategame, but with HotS they are stronger during both early and late game.
While it is true that Protoss are not doing particularly well against Terran at pro level, i'd argue that it is because the skill cap for Terran is far higher, not because Terran is on equal footings with Protoss.
|
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game.
|
On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game.
Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. Even though balance matters the most at high level play, it would still be nice if the rest of us (98%) could play on equal footings aswell.
|
On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win.
bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous.
|
i have a suggestion: how about making zerg carapace upgrades apply to buildings?
zerg is having a really hard time late game zvt and one big part of that is how quickly 3-3 marines can kill buildings. protoss got their nexus hp doubled at some point because of that so i think it's only fair to make hatcheries at least a little bit more durable against marines in late game.
one problem i see with this on top of my head is spines becoming too good lategame vs zealots, thereby discouraging drops cause they're quite good against them already as it is now. i dunno how to fix that but i really think hatcheries die too fast against marine drops lategame and i dunno how else to address this issue. a straight hp buff to hatchery would make sniping hatcheries in mid game as protoss too hard maybe.
i know it's never going to happen but i'd just like to throw this out there for some discussion maybe. thoughts?
|
On June 14 2013 03:40 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 01:07 Big J wrote:On June 14 2013 00:36 Prog455 wrote:On June 13 2013 20:26 Big J wrote:On June 12 2013 12:33 SirPinky wrote:On June 12 2013 00:48 Reborn8u wrote:On June 11 2013 23:21 willstertben wrote:
in my opinion:
macro difficulty wise
zerg > terran > protoss
micro difficulty wise
terran > zerg > protoss
i have played over 2k games each as protoss zerg and terran on high masters mmr.
I think a highly overlooked fact in all of this is that protoss is the most apm demanding and mechanically demanding for macro, however, the very high cost of units and warp gate mechanic allow toss players to dump large amounts of bank into an army very quickly. So while it is easier to keep your money spent, it is more demanding imo. The fact that a single probe can dump a lot of money and produce a mass of buildings quickly by shift queuing, is helpful to spend a bank as well. The double edge to this sword is that high cost army is often too valuable to lose. If the core units (casters, robo units, or air units) get killed and the gateway buffer units are not replaced quickly enough, it is very often GG for protoss. While with Terran or Zerg, large armies are often thrown away or traded (sometimes cost effectively but often not) yet it is by no means a crippling blow. This often occurs in earlier stages of the game, when protoss simply doesn't have the infrastructure or economy yet, in order to "instantly replace" what was lost. People need to stop acting like protoss is so easy to play and so godly. Look at any graph you want for the history of sc2 since early in WOL and it's clear the race has been outperformed consistently. The reason I believe this is the case, is because although protoss has it's strengths, it has massive holes in its game play that are extremely exploitable. Tech switches, losing a single battle, losing a single base, losing a single tech structure, are all almost fatal to protoss, where we've seen Terran and zerg recover from these things time and time again. Rarely do any of these things happen to a protoss and they win. Once protoss gets behind, it's very rare to see them come back in any matchup. Then there is the great troubles protoss has in taking and holding a 3rd (especially any kind of "early" 3rd, even when it is later than a zerg or terran 3rd) , it is such a defining problem of the race, that map making is very skewed and restricted by it. It is VERY hard to make a protoss favored map, and very common for maps to be favored against protoss. The last protoss issue that has existed since the dawn of sc2 is how weak protoss is against cheese's and all in's. Often protoss is so poor at defending them cost effectively that an all in vs protoss isn't even all in. Even after a very good defense by protoss, the game is often still on equal footing after the defense. The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate, and the reliance on it is almost as shameful as protoss reliance on force fields. I really hope we see some huge fundamental changes to protoss and its units in LOTV. So protoss players can feel less restricted and often abused, and the other races can stop complaining about it, while it is clearly and undeniably the weakest race in sc2 throughout it's history, by a solid margin. As a high master Terran player I agree with many of your points, but I have to draw the line when I hear, "The mothership core was supposed to be a big band aid for many of these issues, it certainly does help with many of them, but I feel it is greatly inadequate". When was the last time you saw 2 rax pushes? Proxy Maurader? Fast Banshee (w/o Cloak)? Or a one base all-in from Terran? The mothership core has made toss very greedy, almost too greedy. I think the fact that some Toss are having a hard time is they rely too much on the MSC. And when they finally see a soft 12 marine push with only a stalker and a MSC they cry when everything is not held. In addition, as a mech Terran, I've beat so many toss with early helion "run by" b/c their MSC is out trying to snag a SCV or two. Some Toss just have this complex "If I have a MSC I can't be harmed". And "Look! I can even run around the map and kill things without any repercussions." I don't get why you think it's greedy to have "only" 225/150 worth of units against 600/0 worth of units, as long as you have all sorts of defenders advantages. Sure, it's not a question of costcomparison whether this is greedy play or not, but having one stalker and one MsC with enough energy for a Nexus Canon AND a warp gate, capable of immidiatly warping in another stalker AND something else on the way (like your first immortal) AND the ability to pull workers sounds like pretty safe play to me at a time when an opponent can only have 12marines attacking. (assuming you use your stuff properly, kite/scout the marines early with your stalker etc.) And the complex you talk about is known as "medivac complex". The difference is the time required to build a Terran army that can do even light pressure to Protoss. A single Gateway + MsC can fend off far stronger pushes than a single Barrack, or even two Barracks. EDIT: I know that the races are not supposed to be equal, asymmetrical balance and all that, but Terran was actually supposed to be the stronger race in early game between Protoss and Terran, and right now it is quite the other way around. No, Terran was not "supposed to be" the stronger race. The game was supposed to be fun and balanced. That due to each race working differently (asymetric design) there would be times and timings in which one race could be considered "stronger" in certain aspects of the game is obvious. That's it. No race was supposed to be generally stronger at a certain time, than the other race. It just happens so that they sometimes are. Blizzard has mentioned numerous times that Terran is stronger during the early stages of the game, and that it is Terrans job to crippling damage to Protoss before they reach their end game Deathball. Whether this was a smart approach to the game is debatable, but it was their intention nevertheless. Protoss is still stronger than Terran lategame, but with HotS they are stronger during both early and late game. While it is true that Protoss are not doing particularly well against Terran at pro level, i'd argue that it is because the skill cap for Terran is far higher, not because Terran is on equal footings with Protoss.
Thats simply not true. There was one post from DK in early 2012 where he said that if both sides only play passive there might be an advantage for the protoss player. But that Terran has the tools to prevent such gameplay. He did not say that Terran "has to do damage", "is supposed to be stronger" or "has to win before the lategame". Only that they have the tools to prevent passive gameplay, which can mean greed that forces the opponent to react or tech (like ghosts) which the opponent does not want the terran to mass early as well as the one EXAMPLE he gave afterwards, in which he said that one methode to do so is to damage the protoss economy.
this comment has simply been completly missinterpreted from whiners ever since, and wrongly quoted, making the example sound like "the way all TvPs are supposed to work", instead of "this is one reasonable scenario in which a Terran and a Protoss will come out even in the lategame".
|
On June 14 2013 05:52 willstertben wrote:
i have a suggestion: how about making zerg carapace upgrades apply to buildings?
zerg is having a really hard time late game zvt and one big part of that is how quickly 3-3 marines can kill buildings. protoss got their nexus hp doubled at some point because of that so i think it's only fair to make hatcheries at least a little bit more durable against marines in late game.
one problem i see with this on top of my head is spines becoming too good lategame vs zealots, thereby discouraging drops cause they're quite good against them already as it is now. i dunno how to fix that but i really think hatcheries die too fast against marine drops lategame and i dunno how else to address this issue. a straight hp buff to hatchery would make sniping hatcheries in mid game as protoss too hard maybe.
i know it's never going to happen but i'd just like to throw this out there for some discussion maybe. thoughts?
That patch, nexus went from 1500 HP to 2000, hatch went from 1250 to 1500, and lair from 1800 to 2000. Zerg buildings did get buffed.
|
Hellbats with healing vs hellbats without
From the thread I made at reddit
This example illustrates the difference between an attack that can outright win games and an attack where the results would vary based on actual gameplay*. The Hellbat drop without healing shows the attack can still be cost efficient and that the defense can be done without a larger investment than the opponent's.
Issues with mid and late game balance issues can be addressed after we see the meta-shift from non-bio Hellbats. This change should not completely end Hellbat drops but they would need to be more hit-and-run than stay-and-kill.
Even if additional changes to the game would be needed I think most players, including Terrans, would simply like the design and play better with the biological tag removed from Hellbats.
*There is no micro on either side to establish a baseline and no upgrades on either side to simulate early game scenarios. The attack is 300 min + 100 vespene versus a defense of 300 min + 75 vespene.
(hope no one minds me double posting this to the Hellbat thread and the Balance thread)
|
I wonder what are toss' options when terran parks couple of medivacs with helbats near his base. It seems there is no meaningful way to move out, other than allining. I think this is a huge game design issue. Cause medivacs with helbats are cheap. of course we can wait meta to sort it out but I think it'll get even worse when terrans will learn how to exploit timings and builds.
|
On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game.
That must be why Korean terrans seem to avoid the lategame like plague and SCV pulls happen constantly at 3 bases.
|
On June 26 2013 04:08 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. That must be why Korean terrans seem to avoid the lategame like plague and SCV pulls happen constantly at 3 bases.
Correlation does not imply causation. This is extremely fallacious to point out that Korean Terrans use SCV pulls sometimes(not nearly as frequently as you would imply) means that they are afraid of the lategame. They know for a fact that if they do the SCV pull/viking timing against colossus based macro play from Protoss that they WILL win unless they screw up majorly.
If you had an opportunity to increase your chances of winning significantly versus playing out a 50/50 lategame scenario which would you pick?
|
On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game.
Mines?? No one uses Mines along with bio by lategame. Tempests/Colossi/Stalkers/Templars stomps every possible Terran army.
|
On June 26 2013 04:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Mines?? No one uses Mines along with bio by lategame. Tempests/Colossi/Stalkers/Templars stomps every possible Terran army.
Why does Raven/Ghost/Viking not work? I know that's a lot of gas, but so is your Protoss army you describe. Plus with SCV sacking you can have more army supply.
|
On June 26 2013 04:47 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:40 TheDwf wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Mines?? No one uses Mines along with bio by lategame. Tempests/Colossi/Stalkers/Templars stomps every possible Terran army. Why does Raven/Ghost/Viking not work? I know that's a lot of gas, but so is your Protoss army you describe. Plus with SCV sacking you can have more army supply.
Because after 2 years terran still haven't worked out that Ravens are the best unit in the game :p
|
On June 26 2013 05:38 FCReverie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:47 Wingblade wrote:On June 26 2013 04:40 TheDwf wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Mines?? No one uses Mines along with bio by lategame. Tempests/Colossi/Stalkers/Templars stomps every possible Terran army. Why does Raven/Ghost/Viking not work? I know that's a lot of gas, but so is your Protoss army you describe. Plus with SCV sacking you can have more army supply. Because after 3.5 years terran still haven't worked out that Ravens are the best unit in the game :p
corrected for you.
|
On June 26 2013 12:19 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:38 FCReverie wrote:On June 26 2013 04:47 Wingblade wrote:On June 26 2013 04:40 TheDwf wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Mines?? No one uses Mines along with bio by lategame. Tempests/Colossi/Stalkers/Templars stomps every possible Terran army. Why does Raven/Ghost/Viking not work? I know that's a lot of gas, but so is your Protoss army you describe. Plus with SCV sacking you can have more army supply. Because after 20 years terran still haven't worked out that Ravens are the best unit in the game :p corrected for you.
Since terrans have both the hardest micro and macro, its very unlikely that the skilled players who play terran at a pro level haven't worked out what is best. Protoss, being the easymode race, very probably has most of the players who haven't figured out the game. Just look at all the dumb babies who were crying UP before MC came to power. Kids don't know what is good.
|
On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous.
Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically.
|
On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically.
That's a pretty general statement that could apply to any race and any matchup.... I don't really think it's a question which race requires more technical management in the PvT matchup. That is why you don't see Ghost/Raven/Viking or w/e people are suggesting in this thread. 1 misstep with MMMVG can mean GG, imagine miscontrolling Ghost/Raven/Viking and being caught having to rebuild that army vs. subsequent warpins and a massive push. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm no authority on TvP but it just doesn't seem like a better option than ending the game before ~20/25 mins.
|
On June 26 2013 13:08 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 04:55 stratmatt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:52 Prog455 wrote:On June 14 2013 04:09 freetgy wrote:
don't see how protoss has the stronger lategame army, a lategame MMMGV + Mines is not even closely cost efficiently beatable without a major fuck up by the T in standard game. Maybe at pro level and High Master/GM, but in high Diamond it is ridiculous how hard it is to beat a Protoss army of equal size as Terran, compared to how incredibly easy it is to a-move the Protoss army to win. bingo, as a high-damond / low-master terran player, protoss is the only race that i feel like i can lose to a player considerably worse than i amif the toss is able to turtle and macro effectively, the difference in difficulty when it comes to the 'big battle' is humungous. Maybe you're just not that good. PvT is very management focused for toss with a lot of moments where they can screw themselves if they let a certain situation occur. Lategame devolves down to these very binary scenarios typically.
I totally agree. Who cares that one race is "easier" to play in the wood league. The game should be balanced around the higher levels of play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
