|
Terran late game really sucks compared to other races. Bio is extremely fragile lategame versus Protoss, and there is not much you do in TvZ besides Ghosts as a high tech unit. Zerg can get Broodlords or Ultras, Protoss can get Colossus, Templar, Archon, but Terran really has nothing but Ghosts and perhaps Vikings, and that isn't even a tech unit.
So, I want to start a discussion, what if Tanks were back to two supply and overall damage increased by 10 versus non-armored? Would mech be more viable?
If you're talking about TvP, yes mech would be viable. If you're talking about TvZ, yes it would be horribly imbalanced in the terran's favor. Also, late game bio (mass ghost/marauder/medivac, viking if collosus) is not fragile, at least no more than chargelot/archon/HT/sentry/stalker/ possibly collosus. If you decide not to kite the chargelots or dodge the storms yes it will be very one sided. If you kite the chargelots and blanket EMP everything, it will also be very one-sided. Personally I'd like to see protoss t1/1.5 buffed and t3 aoe nerfed as right now it comes down too much on the success of ghosts vs. HTs and vikings vs. collosus. (And EMP out ranges HT by 3 at maximum range. WHY!?)
|
On August 24 2011 20:56 dartoo wrote:Not sure if this has been posted but,Drexxari, community manager for bliz recently made a post about PvT win rates Show nested quote +
Let's cover a situation that's started up quite recently that we're keeping an eye on:
While global numbers at all league levels are extremely good, (hovering at, or around, 50%) there's some fluctuation in the PvT match-up in the NA and KR Master's leagues. In those leagues terran are doing unusually well against protoss; they're sitting around that 60:40 ratio that was mentioned in the blog (note that this is not reflected in the EU Master's league, nor in the NA Master's league for PvZ or TvZ where all the numbers are also hovering around 50%).
In this case, the evidence suggests that this fluctuation may have its origin in the metagame because a new terran opener has become popular which has proven very effective against the most common protoss opener in those regions, and at that league level. Of course, many times in the past we've seen the metagame cause temporary fluctuations which swing in favor of one race or another to varying degrees.
Nevertheless, we take every event seriously, and we're paying very close attention to how the situation unfolds from here.
http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/156095619?page=2Seems like they are thinking about the situation(maybe a patch), but I think they would prefer to wait it out, especially given that they attribute the percentage to a metagame shift.
60:40 0o
Guess 1-1-1 is really having an effect
|
On August 24 2011 20:59 Huntz wrote:Show nested quote +Terran late game really sucks compared to other races. Bio is extremely fragile lategame versus Protoss, and there is not much you do in TvZ besides Ghosts as a high tech unit. Zerg can get Broodlords or Ultras, Protoss can get Colossus, Templar, Archon, but Terran really has nothing but Ghosts and perhaps Vikings, and that isn't even a tech unit.
So, I want to start a discussion, what if Tanks were back to two supply and overall damage increased by 10 versus non-armored? Would mech be more viable? If you're talking about TvP, yes mech would be viable. If you're talking about TvZ, yes it would be horribly imbalanced in the terran's favor. Also, late game bio (mass ghost/marauder/medivac, viking if collosus) is not fragile, at least no more than chargelot/archon/HT/sentry/stalker/ possibly collosus. If you decide not to kite the chargelots or dodge the storms yes it will be very one sided. If you kite the chargelots and blanket EMP everything, it will also be very one-sided. Personally I'd like to see protoss t1/1.5 buffed and t3 aoe nerfed as right now it comes down too much on the success of ghosts vs. HTs and vikings vs. collosus. (And EMP out ranges HT by 3 at maximum range. WHY!?)
Yeah I'm mainly talking about TvP. Aside from perhaps seeing more Raven usage, I think TvZ lategame is fine. But TvP....I want straight up mech play, not the 1-1-1 shit.
There must be a way to open bio, stay aggressive for a bit, expand, and then transition to mech after you take your third.
|
well there's that Warden's 1:1:1 T deathball guide, not sure if that's what you're looking for. But just because you don't know of a bio opening that transitions well into mech doesn't warrant a huge buff to tanks 
|
On August 24 2011 21:17 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 20:59 Huntz wrote:Terran late game really sucks compared to other races. Bio is extremely fragile lategame versus Protoss, and there is not much you do in TvZ besides Ghosts as a high tech unit. Zerg can get Broodlords or Ultras, Protoss can get Colossus, Templar, Archon, but Terran really has nothing but Ghosts and perhaps Vikings, and that isn't even a tech unit.
So, I want to start a discussion, what if Tanks were back to two supply and overall damage increased by 10 versus non-armored? Would mech be more viable? If you're talking about TvP, yes mech would be viable. If you're talking about TvZ, yes it would be horribly imbalanced in the terran's favor. Also, late game bio (mass ghost/marauder/medivac, viking if collosus) is not fragile, at least no more than chargelot/archon/HT/sentry/stalker/ possibly collosus. If you decide not to kite the chargelots or dodge the storms yes it will be very one sided. If you kite the chargelots and blanket EMP everything, it will also be very one-sided. Personally I'd like to see protoss t1/1.5 buffed and t3 aoe nerfed as right now it comes down too much on the success of ghosts vs. HTs and vikings vs. collosus. (And EMP out ranges HT by 3 at maximum range. WHY!?) Yeah I'm mainly talking about TvP. Aside from perhaps seeing more Raven usage, I think TvZ lategame is fine. But TvP....I want straight up mech play, not the 1-1-1 shit. There must be a way to open bio, stay aggressive for a bit, expand, and then transition to mech after you take your third.
I can't be the only one who likes the fact that bio is viable in a match-up? Those bio upgrades and support units are there for a reason, they're not designed to be purely transitional units as you tech towards mech/air. Thats one of the brilliant things about Starcraft, units stay viable throughout the game whereas in many poorly designed RTS games higher tier units are always better.
Right now terran play is mostly bio against toss, bio/mech against zerg and mech in mirror. Its a good variety if you ask me.
|
On August 24 2011 20:50 Stiluz wrote:Show nested quote +
You can point to this as bunkers being too powerful or look at the broader picture of Zerg just having huge fucking holes in their tech. Zerg at hatch tech essentially have one hand tied behind their back, with no anti air capable of putting pressure back on the opponent and very cumbersome AA defense, not being able to counter with anything but lings without it being an all in, scouting issues, lack of quickly accessible ranged units that make pylon wall ins and bunker wall ins viable etc.
I'd prefer to see an overhaul of Zerg in HotS that really addresses all the silly issues Zerg has in the early game that is accounting for the stupid losses that are depleting Zerg numbers in the higher brackets of tournaments. I could give a laundry list of changes that I'd like to see in HotS but if there is one change that I think is perfectly reasonable, balanced and viable to implement without risk of breaking the game it's to make Zerg either start with an active creep tumor or be able to spawn a active creep tumor from each hatchery one time.
With this you can remove the volatility of the variable distance from hatchery to ramp to the natural where it delays when you can have a spine crawler moved down or how long it takes to connect creep for queen movement.
It would give Zerg a headstart on creep spread which is not unreasonable given how it's been demonstrated for Terran and protoss to easily impede early creep spread.
It would stop silly cheeses like bunker and pylon cannon contains but not cannon rushing or bunker rushing. It would remove the volatility of ramp size, distance, and choke size on maps like Belshir Beach and Tal Darim Altar.
It would also help Zerg to push defences like spinecrawlers past chokes in the natural that work against the zerg player on some of the new maps where the creep of the natural does not spread far enough forward.
There is no huge economic advantage to be gained besides a more reliable defense and would only help aggression on maps with a short rush distance which already have been shown to be imbalanced against Zerg making it a non issue. It would basically mostly allow Zergs to build a more reliable all around defense to prevent silly losses to cheeses that frankly shouldn't be viable but could never be nerfed because they would have to be nerfs to core protoss and terran units that would ruin overall game balance.
This is seriously the best suggestion I've seen in a long while. I would really like to see the volatility of the silly losses Zerg suffers every tournament to go away. That way Terrans would also need to develop their mid and lategame more too, and the game would be explored more too. I hope Blizzard has thought about this creep change.
I hate how the game changes so much as the phases of the game elapse. It's okay for there to be minor variations, or slight advantages, but in an equally skilled match, having one race dominate one portion of the game just seems like poor design to me.
|
On August 24 2011 19:09 WigglingSquid wrote:
Obligatory "bunker rushes against Zerg" post after today's NesTea vs IMMVP match 2.
While they are not particularly successful, as seen on the late spike in the usage of this strategy, the abilty to salvage bunkers might grant a reward too high for little risk and resource investment.
(Today's case was a bit unique, in that it exploited map configuration.)
I'm reminded of the final match in the Rain vs Catz series of their recent clan war.
+ Show Spoiler +Series was all tied up, and the whole event came down to one match between Rain (T) and Catz (Z). Catz was bunker rushed in the opening, gged shortly after he was unable to stop the building process. Pretty anticlimatic
IMO, drop bunker salvaging altogether. Terran has it easy enough as it is, and without similar advantges to other races' static defenses, hardly seems needed. I mean, yeah zerg defenses can relocate, and toss cannons can detect, but they both need to be placed by creep/pylons respectively, and so the advantage is marginalized, not like the ability for terrans to build essentially free defenses.
|
My thought about balance in the game right now: Terrans are just too versatile.
ZvP is, in many ways, fine. In that correctly scouting and countering, for both players, will give you an early lead in the game, and a way to win the game.
TvZ or TvP is problematic because of three things:
- Floating buildings combined with supply depots that lower, means that a complete wall off you can't scout behind can be made extremely early. You can't scout the difference between fast expansion and heavy tech or multibarracks all in or ... anything.
- Proxies are nearly riskless. You just lose production time, and possible addons. You can proxy 2 barracks, make a supply depot wall, and if your rush fails, just float your buildings back and expo behind. Rather riskless. Z can't proxy really, and if they do, the tech building costs more (have to build and cancel hatch for creep), and P can proxy but if scouted, will lose the tech.
- Scouting terran, who have the most versatile build, is the hardest of all the races. Z can't really wall in well. P can, but if they do, they have to destroy the buildings to get out later. The first unit for terran is ranged and can shoot up, which makes scouting with overlords harder, and easier to kill scouting workers early game.
In addition, the constant switching of tech labs and reactors, makes it possible for terrans to have so many different techs out fast, which can be devastating if not scouted.
The way I see it, a good patch that wouldn't change TOO much would be for:
Patch suggestion:
- Command centers (alternatively, but not as good, orbital commands) can no longer be lifted (makes scouting the correct number of bases and some builds much easier.
- Add a 'detachment' time for buildings to detach from addons (20 in game seconds?) during which building can't be produced out of.
- Salvaging the bunker spawns a terran 1 hp unit that have to travel to the nearest CC to return the minerals.
It would slow down some tech, and make some builds a lot easier to scout.
It just feels like Terran have too many options compared to the other two races, and the lack of scouting ability means it's just so easy to end up quite far behind.
I doubt any easy fix by nerfing a single unit (if so, it would have to be marine hp) could fix anything much.
An alternative to the above would be:
- Combat shield requires armory.
- PDD lasts 45 in game seconds.
I really think at the moment that Terran is just ... slightly too strong because of the combination of versatility in useful builds in all matchups, relatively risk free proxies, and being so hard to scout.
|
Protoss have observers and zerg have changelings, overlords/overseers. Scouting should not be anywhere near as much an issue as you claim.
As for the detachment time for add ons: Really? Protoss can warp in across the map and zerg can build 3-6 of any unit per hatch, In my opinion add ons suck in comparison, especially sense they can be killed and then there gone.
The command center thing, well its more effective to make it an orbital first anyways so...
The bunker salvaging: Zerg can move their spines and spores around, so I feel they have something similiar, plus bunkers can only shoot if there are actually units inside. Cannons have regenerating shields and can attack both ground and air.
Marines: Can be easier to counter in the later game, when things like storms and infestors are more available.
TBH I see no issue with the balancing, but I am not a korean grand master or anything so....
|
On August 24 2011 19:35 Bleak wrote:
Terran late game really sucks compared to other races. Bio is extremely fragile lategame versus Protoss, and there is not much you do in TvZ besides Ghosts as a high tech unit. Zerg can get Broodlords or Ultras, Protoss can get Colossus, Templar, Archon, but Terran really has nothing but Ghosts and perhaps Vikings, and that isn't even a tech unit.
So, I want to start a discussion, what if Tanks were back to two supply and overall damage increased by 10 versus non-armored? Would mech be more viable?
That's IMHO not true at all, Terran actually has so many Options in the lategame, that just don't get (ab)used that much...
1) Terran has a very strong maxed army, with that I mean that the value of Units is very high compared to the amount of Supply they require. a Bio Army for example is like worth so much more supply than a roach-Army by the Zerg.
2) Terran can artificially make their supply-cap much higher, by replacing SCV's with Orbitals for Mules in the lategame. Boxer, TLO and many Slayers-Terrans use that with great success, but other Terrans just don't do it that often, which is quite hilarious, cuz once you're maxed and have overmins, adding Orbitals that pay for themselves within minutes and free up at least 5 Supply per Orbital is just ridiculously strong.
3) Terran have very strong buildings and Upgrades for the buildings - You can be totally Counter-attack-proof just with good Building-placement, PFF's, Turrets etc. which makes your main-army even stronger.
4) I really really have NO Idea why Terrans don't use more Ghosts in Lategame TvZ. I've seen so many games, where the Terran was maxed an had tons of ressources, but wasn't able to put down a simple Ghost-Academy, which TOTALLY DESTROY almost every lategame-composition the Zerg has to offer. And I really mean "DESTROY". Ghosts are ridiculously powerful against Zerg and when I'm off-racing with Terran, I immediately throw down a Ghost-Acad when I see the slightest sign of Infestors or T3 coming up. They even rape Mutas, so it's actually almost impossible to make Ghosts too soon or get countered by some sort of anti-ghost Army-Comp. GHOSTS ARE GOOD! Every Zerg will say the same. And if you look at for example ppl like MorroW, who plays Terran against Zerg but Zerg against the other races - he always makes Ghosts in the lategame and he surely knows why.
5) With higher amount of buildings, Terran will most likely have a higher amount of Add-On's, but you almost never see lategame switching of Addons. Why not switch the Starport with a reactor to a TL, just to put out 1 raven to safe up 10+ scans to kill creep tumors, to be safe against Burrowed Blings and to have very useful and versatile Skills like the PDD and Auto-Turret?
I'm really astonished why Terrans don't abuse these sort of simple techniques, that can easily be used in very game. But it's just like Tyler said about the possibilities of Protoss against Zerg: Why use them when they win without them? In the near future, Terran lategame will most likely totally evolve around the things I've mentioned above and everyone will do them.
So NO - Terran lategame is not the worst, it's just different, with it's own benefits over the other races and downfalls against them too.
|
As far as balancing I would nerf marine damage a bit and see how the metagame evolves from there and then maybe buff something else from terrans.
I got a question for toss players. Do you people really think infestors are too OP in ZvP?
I seen people whine here and there but I am not sure how popular this opinion is.
|
On August 24 2011 23:11 -Archangel- wrote:
As far as balancing I would nerf marine damage a bit and see how the metagame evolves from there and then maybe buff something else from terrans.
Difficult question because of bias. I personally think they are too versatile against protoss.
They can harass (burrow move fungal / it spam), deal ridiculous ball damage (fungal), prevent blink that makes stalker somewhat cost efficient (fungal), take over key damage dealing units (neural with colossus / immortals / archons), prevent unit moving / splitting against bling bombs (fungal).
Maybe i'm just envious because our caster is less mobile, versatile and not really useful in ZvP.
But they sure cover a hugeload of area, on top of that they have an energy upgrade, so they are instant ready to at least use fungal and prevent blink after army clashes.
|
Protoss have observers and zerg have changelings, overlords/overseers. Scouting should not be anywhere near as much an issue as you claim.
As for the detachment time for add ons: Really? Protoss can warp in across the map and zerg can build 3-6 of any unit per hatch, In my opinion add ons suck in comparison, especially sense they can be killed and then there gone.
The command center thing, well its more effective to make it an orbital first anyways so...
The bunker salvaging: Zerg can move their spines and spores around, so I feel they have something similiar, plus bunkers can only shoot if there are actually units inside. Cannons have regenerating shields and can attack both ground and air.
Marines: Can be easier to counter in the later game, when things like storms and infestors are more available.
Yeah, and terran have scans. The difference is if you scout a terran last you get no information until observer or overlord speed unless the terran messes up. On top of that most terran builds only show 1 gas/1 rax/1 marine before you have to leave; that's nothing compared to the information you can get from a Protoss or Zerg.
About add-ons that's not really a fact and makes little sense to compare them. 20 seconds is far too long but a 5 second delay would not be unreasonable.
Orbital should not be able to lift off, that would allow scouting expos faster. CC not lifting would only be useful if orbital couldn't lift either.
Marines are only a problem in abusive 1 base all-ins that hit before Protoss has AOE. Late game they're fine.
|
On August 24 2011 23:11 -Archangel- wrote:
As far as balancing I would nerf marine damage a bit and see how the metagame evolves from there and then maybe buff something else from terrans.
I got a question for toss players. Do you people really think infestors are too OP in ZvP?
I seen people whine here and there but I am not sure how popular this opinion is.
the only thing OP in ZvP is the zerg race macro mechanics
|
There's no way infestors are too op. They are like HT - when they come out, they are fucking amazing and you need to counter them or you die. But in the process, Zerg is extremely vulnerable.
And HT just completely nullify infestors, it's horrible. I know they say "just micro lol" but FG needs to be chained and has short range, having 10-20 infestors all die to just 4-6 HT for a single FG is horrible.
Stalker/Colossi with HT support is extremely stable and owns pretty much everything Zerg has except Ultralisks, and P should be able to max out before hive is an issue.
Infestor/BL is a great ZvT combo, but unfortunately it's too expensive to ever win games. The only time it ever wins is when Zerg has already won the game, and has at least 2 bases above Terran. If Terran stays on even base with Zerg, it's just too costly to lose infestor to siege tanks and BL to vikings. It's not a cost effective unit composition at all, and that's not including ghosts. I have never seen a game where BL/Viking wins at the top level when Terran was on even base, and when Zerg just has 1 base ahead, it's a hard game. Terran needs ghosts and vikings and from there it's micro intensive.
Anyways, I would say Zerg has a lot of issues suffering from lack of early game scouting, and a lack of options. Yes, it's balanced, but P's forcefields and Terran's myriad of options make Zerg a bit underdeveloped, although that's a design issue rather than balance issue. Combined with lack of early game scouting, it's just too difficult for Zerg to deal with the myriad of ... well, bullshit that can be thrown at them.
Zerg's lack of early game aggression options against Protoss is also imba. Zerg can't just go kill a Protoss who did a 4 gate, or 2 gate, or FE Stargate, or DTs, or stargate, because of lack of roach speed and forcefields. It makes it so Zerg's only option is to macro up, which is fine, but it's a problem how much P can get away with and still be in the game. It stagnates Zerg's options into only playing macro. It's funny to notice that you can tell if Zerg lost a game by the replay being less than 15 minutes.
I would also say colossi are a bit imbalanced. Zerg really has no counter before Ultralisks, and you can't get Ultras before P maxes out (or at least has their 160ish supply of 'dream' army). Right now Zerg's best options are infestors, but a stalker/colossi army with HT support completely nullifies that. P armies with huge colossi support are almost impossible to stop for Zerg as well.
A lot of P try to do gimmicky archon or starport play, which Zerg can handle easily. Incontrol got rolled by Destiny by doing cute things like that, but stalker/sentry/colossi with HT support is just impossible for Zerg - or in other words, normal play from P.
|
On August 24 2011 23:22 Belial88 wrote:but stalker/sentry/colossi with HT support is just impossible for Zerg - or in other words, normal play from P.
This is completely false. A good zerg can dominate most protoss players at this point.
Protoss received a lot of nerfs, resulting in their early game being even weaker than before. It is now impossible to punish a greedy zerg. Protoss can either 1base which allows zerg to FE and get a huge macro advantage, and 1base protoss doesn't hurt zerg at all in any way, or they can do any fast expand build, which allows zerg to take a third before their 2nd is even done. In both situations, zerg can abuse their macro mechanic, resulting in it being like 45 probes against 80 drones if done correctly. Pro's like nestea are very good at this, and lower level zergs are figuring this out more and more.
Punishing this greed has become impossible, because 4gate or similar rushes are no longer effective, and stargates or dt do not harm zerg either, they have adapted to this (look at gsl games).
Because of this huge macro advantage zergs can get, protoss rely on things like 6gate or 2base colossus pushes, and while those are somewhat effective in diamond/masters, gsl zergs mostly are able to stop this. Yes, colossus is quite strong, but the macro advantage a good zerg can get allows them to throw a crazy amount of units at protoss, zergs can max while protoss are still around 120-140. Add to this the strength and cheapness of the roach, and the power of the infestor and zerg just has an easy time if he's doing it correctly. Games end way before protoss has the chance to get 2 totally separate tech trees, robo for colossus and archives for templars. Even if games last this long zerg still has more than enough to win it.
|
ZvP is fine for now, the balance shifts drastically every month as a new FOTM build/style is done. Until it actually settles in either direction it would be dumb to change anything at all big.
|
On August 25 2011 00:05 Yaotzin wrote:
ZvP is fine for now, the balance shifts drastically every month as a new FOTM build/style is done. Until it actually settles in either direction it would be dumb to change anything at all big.
Yet blizzard nerfed protoss and buffed zerg all the time for the last... year? That doesn't make any sense, and the thing protoss needs now is more variation so they don't need to rely on 2base timing pushes.
|
Anyways, I would say Zerg has a lot of issues suffering from lack of early game scouting, and a lack of options. Yes, it's balanced, but P's forcefields and Terran's myriad of options make Zerg a bit underdeveloped, although that's a design issue rather than balance issue. Combined with lack of early game scouting, it's just too difficult for Zerg to deal with the myriad of ... well, bullshit that can be thrown at them.
Zerg early game scouting is better than Protoss early game scouting. At least you CAN sack an overlord, P doesn't exactly have that option. In PvZ I guess you have the option of hallucination, but it doesn't come out much if any faster than a quick robo/obs. Protoss and Zerg are both underdeveloped when compared to Terran. I don't know what "bullshit" you're talking about, there isn't exactly a 1-1-1 vs. Zerg.
Zerg's lack of early game aggression options against Protoss is also imba. Zerg can't just go kill a Protoss who did a 4 gate, or 2 gate, or FE Stargate, or DTs, or stargate, because of lack of roach speed and forcefields. It makes it so Zerg's only option is to macro up, which is fine, but it's a problem how much P can get away with and still be in the game. It stagnates Zerg's options into only playing macro. It's funny to notice that you can tell if Zerg lost a game by the replay being less than 15 minutes.
I don't know what you're complaining about. If the protoss 4 gates, you win. If they 2 gate, unless you totally fail, you're way far ahead. Same thing about star gate and DTs, you're game winningly ahead. Protoss might still be "in the game" as in, you haven't killed them yet, but its just a matter of time before you do kill them. About the replay that's just a generalization and reflects more on game design that any imbalances.
I would also say colossi are a bit imbalanced. Zerg really has no counter before Ultralisks, and you can't get Ultras before P maxes out (or at least has their 160ish supply of 'dream' army). Right now Zerg's best options are infestors, but a stalker/colossi army with HT support completely nullifies that. P armies with huge colossi support are almost impossible to stop for Zerg as well.
Collosus are definitely not imbalanced. Corruptors do counter them, no matter how much you Zergs hate to use them. Maxing out and having 160 supply is HUGE difference. You're obsessed with the power of Collosus/HT but that's along the same lines as infestor/broodlord. Further. Protoss don't just magically get that, its at the end of two entirely different tech trees. If he's got HT, collosus, and a respectable stalker force before you have hive tech, its not the reason you lost. The deathball was figured out a long time ago, I don't know why you're still having trouble with it.
|
On August 25 2011 00:11 Huntz wrote:
Collosus are definitely not imbalanced. Corruptors do counter them, no matter how much you Zergs hate to use them. Maxing out and having 160 supply is HUGE difference. You're obsessed with the power of Collosus/HT but that's along the same lines as infestor/broodlord. Further. Protoss don't just magically get that, its at the end of two entirely different tech trees. If he's got HT, collosus, and a respectable stalker force before you have hive tech, its not the reason you lost. The deathball was figured out a long time ago, I don't know why you're still having trouble with it.
Main issue with corruptors is that if P remax on ground you have to kill your own useless units.
Vikings can at least land for harass
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
