|
On August 01 2013 19:13 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 08:50 Shiori wrote:
The idea of removing CC lifting/MULEs/Ghosts is absolutely absurd. The game would be cheese or die in every matchup, since you wouldn't be able to expand early (since even a reactive all-in would kill you) and you wouldn't be able to win late (no Ghosts vs Toss late = just leave the game) and you also would have a lot less production since you don't have MULEs. So basically, Terran would be more or less fucked all around. Ghosts: You're simply exaggerating. I've seen Terran compete at the highest level without using any ghosts. If Terrans can beat Rain without ghosts (and they do), then it's absurd to suggest that Terran will die every matchup. Because they won't. The issue is whether they'd keep their 50% or higher win rate. But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. Which might one day be refuted. Time will tell. CC lifting: You haven't spelled out why Terran uniquely depends on the ability to lift its bases. Are you saying Terran is more vulnerable to early game cheese than Protoss? Because it definitely wasn't true in WoL when CC lifting was designed, and I'm not convinced it's true now. Enlighten me: Why does Terran have a special need for flying CCs, but not Protoss or Zerg? Mules: This sounds absurd, I agree, but ask yourself: Why should Terran be able to miner faster than the other races? In terms of mining mules are far more effective than chrono boost overall and even Zerg's larvae production in the long run. They already have a worker advantage from being able to spam flying CCs. So maybe EITHER mules or flying CCs could go and the Terrans would be able to adapt.
Ghosts: the only other response Terran has to HTs is tanks, and we all know how Terran does when they get a lot of tanks TvP.
CC lifting: TvZ metagame has depended entirely on being able to get a quick 3 command centers to compete with Zerg's fast third base for well over a year now. Removing that is to take the lynchpin of standard Terran TvZ and literally remove it from the game, which is a really good way to break win rates very quickly.
MULEs: I'd agree that MULEs are better than chrono boost, but they aren't unilaterally better than larvae-based production. For example, larvae production enables Zerg to totally dominate the air at a moment's notice by spamming mutas or corruptors, which Terran cannot do. For Protoss the really strong production mechanic isn't chrono boost, it's warp gate, and I'm not convinced MULEs are better than that. For instance, MULEs don't allow a Terran to trade armies with a Protoss, and then immediately remax in his opponent's main.
Removing MULEs would totally and completely ruin Terran win rates. In fact, all of these things you want to remove are core mechanics that aren't realistically going to leave this game. And that's a good thing, because that would do terrible things to Starcraft II.
|
hey guys! how about wm with lesser dmg but more frequent fire?
would that be op?
+ Show Spoiler + why people still talking about removing mule!?!
I personally prefer bw ghost though :p
|
On August 01 2013 19:51 SsDrKosS wrote:hey guys! how about wm with lesser dmg but more frequent fire? would that be op? + Show Spoiler + why people still talking about removing mule!?!
I personally prefer bw ghost though :p
that would destroy all of the fun in mines... What use is it to deactivate mines with taking shots, when they just reload before you can charge in...
|
On August 01 2013 19:51 SsDrKosS wrote:hey guys! how about wm with lesser dmg but more frequent fire? would that be op? + Show Spoiler + why people still talking about removing mule!?!
I personally prefer bw ghost though :p
Lockdown gg cols/immos. Bringing that spell back would be pretty hilarious.
|
On August 01 2013 19:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 19:51 SsDrKosS wrote:hey guys! how about wm with lesser dmg but more frequent fire? would that be op? + Show Spoiler + why people still talking about removing mule!?!
I personally prefer bw ghost though :p that would destroy all of the fun in mines... What use is it to deactivate mines with taking shots, when they just reload before you can charge in...
oh, I never know that mine was fun but I think you are right 
then how could the mines be more micro-intense?
IT's like SH is no fun at all (worse than WM in PvZ)
and tempest...a hard counter unit. full stop.
Mama core is just a bandaid unit (which works quite well though)
oracle... sigh
hellbat is okay-ish now
How come all the hots units are soo terrible  (except viper and MSC)
Edit: I mean bad 'design'.
|
On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:
Ghosts: the only other response Terran has to HTs is tanks, and we all know how Terran does when they get a lot of tanks TvP. A common response to HTs is to simply overwhelm your opponent. However, I agree it would be a lot less interesting without the ghosts. So maybe instead of removing them you could consider, like...having to research EMP. Shock, horror!
On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:CC lifting: TvZ metagame has depended entirely on being able to get a quick 3 command centers to compete with Zerg's fast third base for well over a year now. Removing that is to take the lynchpin of standard Terran TvZ and literally remove it from the game, which is a really good way to break win rates very quickly. And I'm saying that after that period the win rates would readjust. Protoss doesn't get the luxury of a quick 3 bases and can still compete with Zerg. Why should that be true? Does Protoss have more cost effective units or something? Because saying "Yes" would be controversial. What is there about the mechanics of the game that makes Terran depend on 3 CC greed, but not Protoss?
On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:MULEs: I'd agree that MULEs are better than chrono boost, but they aren't unilaterally better than larvae-based production. For example, larvae production enables Zerg to totally dominate the air at a moment's notice by spamming mutas or corruptors, which Terran cannot do. For Protoss the really strong production mechanic isn't chrono boost, it's warp gate, and I'm not convinced MULEs are better than that. For instance, MULEs don't allow a Terran to trade armies with a Protoss, and then immediately remax in his opponent's main. Warp gate? Pretty funny. If you go on about how OP medivac drops are, they invoke the OPness of warp gates. Flying buildings, they respond with warp gates. OP bio with a no-SCV economy, and they cite warp gates. Isn't it OP that Terran can queue all their units? Well what about warp gates? Etc. When are Terrans going to stop playing the warp gate card as an answer to every complaint about balance?
On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:Removing MULEs would totally and completely ruin Terran win rates. In fact, all of these things you want to remove are core mechanics that aren't realistically going to leave this game. And that's a good thing, because that would do terrible things to Starcraft II. I never said otherwise. I don't want Blizzard to reduce variety. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that your race is imbalanced and has a ton of luxury units and capabilities that it doesn't even need to maintain its win rate.
Fast 3 CC is probably the best example. Could you compete with Zerg without the fast 3 CC? Probably...but then you'd be more like Protoss, e.g. you'd have to turtle carefully and know the exact timings, as opposed to just be able to spam units and attack.
|
On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 19:13 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 08:50 Shiori wrote:
The idea of removing CC lifting/MULEs/Ghosts is absolutely absurd. The game would be cheese or die in every matchup, since you wouldn't be able to expand early (since even a reactive all-in would kill you) and you wouldn't be able to win late (no Ghosts vs Toss late = just leave the game) and you also would have a lot less production since you don't have MULEs. So basically, Terran would be more or less fucked all around. Ghosts: You're simply exaggerating. I've seen Terran compete at the highest level without using any ghosts. If Terrans can beat Rain without ghosts (and they do), then it's absurd to suggest that Terran will die every matchup. Because they won't. The issue is whether they'd keep their 50% or higher win rate. But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. Which might one day be refuted. Time will tell. CC lifting: You haven't spelled out why Terran uniquely depends on the ability to lift its bases. Are you saying Terran is more vulnerable to early game cheese than Protoss? Because it definitely wasn't true in WoL when CC lifting was designed, and I'm not convinced it's true now. Enlighten me: Why does Terran have a special need for flying CCs, but not Protoss or Zerg? Mules: This sounds absurd, I agree, but ask yourself: Why should Terran be able to miner faster than the other races? In terms of mining mules are far more effective than chrono boost overall and even Zerg's larvae production in the long run. They already have a worker advantage from being able to spam flying CCs. So maybe EITHER mules or flying CCs could go and the Terrans would be able to adapt. Ghosts: the only other response Terran has to HTs is tanks, and we all know how Terran does when they get a lot of tanks TvP. CC lifting: TvZ metagame has depended entirely on being able to get a quick 3 command centers to compete with Zerg's fast third base for well over a year now. Removing that is to take the lynchpin of standard Terran TvZ and literally remove it from the game, which is a really good way to break win rates very quickly. MULEs: I'd agree that MULEs are better than chrono boost, but they aren't unilaterally better than larvae-based production. For example, larvae production enables Zerg to totally dominate the air at a moment's notice by spamming mutas or corruptors, which Terran cannot do. For Protoss the really strong production mechanic isn't chrono boost, it's warp gate, and I'm not convinced MULEs are better than that. For instance, MULEs don't allow a Terran to trade armies with a Protoss, and then immediately remax in his opponent's main. Removing MULEs would totally and completely ruin Terran win rates. In fact, all of these things you want to remove are core mechanics that aren't realistically going to leave this game. And that's a good thing, because that would do terrible things to Starcraft II.
@GreenGringo
Get out. Find another game to entertain yourself. Please.
Your "balance" are nothing but nerfs. Seriously, play a few ladder games without MULEs and ghosts and see how far behind you'll be against a competent opponent. The only thing that can snipe HT are battle cruisers and ravens, which surprise, surprise will be feedback by any competent protoss managing his HTs well and backed by a decent gateway/stargate army.
You say "But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. " It took me, 2 seconds to realise the implications of removing the ghost...
Terrans have flying buildings the same way pylons and creep allow any building to be placed anywhere on the map.
You actually think Blizzard didn't run the numbers when they gave out spawn larvae, chrono boost and MULE?
Players have been crunching the numbers as well since 2010 and have proven that MULEs keep a T ON PAR with the other race's economy on equal bases.
Seriously, dude seriously? What are your credentials, 20 pages and you have produced nothing but nerfs disguised as balance. Do you even have a college degree? It's like you don't even understand the basic concept of cause and effect.
|
On August 01 2013 20:14 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:
Ghosts: the only other response Terran has to HTs is tanks, and we all know how Terran does when they get a lot of tanks TvP. A common response to HTs is to simply overwhelm your opponent. However, I agree it would be a lot less interesting without the ghosts. So maybe instead of removing them you could consider, like...having to research EMP. Shock, horror! Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:CC lifting: TvZ metagame has depended entirely on being able to get a quick 3 command centers to compete with Zerg's fast third base for well over a year now. Removing that is to take the lynchpin of standard Terran TvZ and literally remove it from the game, which is a really good way to break win rates very quickly. And I'm saying that after that period the win rates would readjust. Protoss doesn't get the luxury of a quick 3 bases and can still compete with Zerg. Why should that be true? Does Protoss have more cost effective units or something? Because saying "Yes" would be controversial. What is there about the mechanics of the game that makes Terran depend on 3 CC greed, but not Protoss? Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:MULEs: I'd agree that MULEs are better than chrono boost, but they aren't unilaterally better than larvae-based production. For example, larvae production enables Zerg to totally dominate the air at a moment's notice by spamming mutas or corruptors, which Terran cannot do. For Protoss the really strong production mechanic isn't chrono boost, it's warp gate, and I'm not convinced MULEs are better than that. For instance, MULEs don't allow a Terran to trade armies with a Protoss, and then immediately remax in his opponent's main. Warp gate? Pretty funny. If you go on about how OP medivac drops are, they invoke the OPness of warp gates. Flying buildings, they respond with warp gates. OP bio with a no-SCV economy, and they cite warp gates. Isn't it OP that Terran can queue all their units? Well what about warp gates? Etc. When are Terrans going to stop playing the warp gate card as an answer to every complaint about balance? Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:Removing MULEs would totally and completely ruin Terran win rates. In fact, all of these things you want to remove are core mechanics that aren't realistically going to leave this game. And that's a good thing, because that would do terrible things to Starcraft II. I never said otherwise. I don't want them to reduce variety. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that your race is imbalanced and has a ton of luxury units and capabilities that it doesn't even need to maintain its win rate. Fast 3 CC is probably the best example. Could you compete with Zerg without the fast 3 CC? Probably...but then you'd be more like Protoss, e.g. you'd have to turtle carefully and know the exact timings, as opposed to just be able to spam units and attack.
You seem to have a very biased view of the skill level needed to play terran and the strength of terran units. I'm not sure if you add any value to the discussion because you clearly can't think objectively
|
On August 01 2013 20:20 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Seriously, dude seriously? What are your credentials, 20 pages and you have produced nothing but nerfs disguised as balance. Do you even have a college degree? It's like you don't even understand the basic concept of cause and effect. +1 for trolling, man. I have to admit, I'm impressed.
|
On August 01 2013 20:25 5unrise wrote:
You seem to have a very biased view of the skill level needed to play terran and the strength of terran units. I'm not sure if you add any value to the discussion because you clearly can't think objectively Like half of the Terrans here. But that isn't an argument. Do you have any proof that Terran can't win without greedy 3 CC?
|
On August 01 2013 20:20 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:On August 01 2013 19:13 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 08:50 Shiori wrote:
The idea of removing CC lifting/MULEs/Ghosts is absolutely absurd. The game would be cheese or die in every matchup, since you wouldn't be able to expand early (since even a reactive all-in would kill you) and you wouldn't be able to win late (no Ghosts vs Toss late = just leave the game) and you also would have a lot less production since you don't have MULEs. So basically, Terran would be more or less fucked all around. Ghosts: You're simply exaggerating. I've seen Terran compete at the highest level without using any ghosts. If Terrans can beat Rain without ghosts (and they do), then it's absurd to suggest that Terran will die every matchup. Because they won't. The issue is whether they'd keep their 50% or higher win rate. But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. Which might one day be refuted. Time will tell. CC lifting: You haven't spelled out why Terran uniquely depends on the ability to lift its bases. Are you saying Terran is more vulnerable to early game cheese than Protoss? Because it definitely wasn't true in WoL when CC lifting was designed, and I'm not convinced it's true now. Enlighten me: Why does Terran have a special need for flying CCs, but not Protoss or Zerg? Mules: This sounds absurd, I agree, but ask yourself: Why should Terran be able to miner faster than the other races? In terms of mining mules are far more effective than chrono boost overall and even Zerg's larvae production in the long run. They already have a worker advantage from being able to spam flying CCs. So maybe EITHER mules or flying CCs could go and the Terrans would be able to adapt. Ghosts: the only other response Terran has to HTs is tanks, and we all know how Terran does when they get a lot of tanks TvP. CC lifting: TvZ metagame has depended entirely on being able to get a quick 3 command centers to compete with Zerg's fast third base for well over a year now. Removing that is to take the lynchpin of standard Terran TvZ and literally remove it from the game, which is a really good way to break win rates very quickly. MULEs: I'd agree that MULEs are better than chrono boost, but they aren't unilaterally better than larvae-based production. For example, larvae production enables Zerg to totally dominate the air at a moment's notice by spamming mutas or corruptors, which Terran cannot do. For Protoss the really strong production mechanic isn't chrono boost, it's warp gate, and I'm not convinced MULEs are better than that. For instance, MULEs don't allow a Terran to trade armies with a Protoss, and then immediately remax in his opponent's main. Removing MULEs would totally and completely ruin Terran win rates. In fact, all of these things you want to remove are core mechanics that aren't realistically going to leave this game. And that's a good thing, because that would do terrible things to Starcraft II. @GreenGringo Get out. Find another game to entertain yourself. Please. Your "balance" are nothing but nerfs. Seriously, play a few ladder games without MULEs and ghosts and see how far behind you'll be against a competent opponent. The only thing that can snipe HT are battle cruisers and ravens, which surprise, surprise will be feedback by any competent protoss managing his HTs well and backed by a decent gateway/stargate army. You say "But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. " It took me, 2 seconds to realise the implications of removing the ghost... Terrans have flying buildings the same way pylons and creep allow any building to be placed anywhere on the map. You actually think Blizzard didn't run the numbers when they gave out spawn larvae, chrono boost and MULE? Seriously, dude seriously? What are your credentials, 20 pages and you have produced nothing but nerfs disguised as balance. Do you even have a college degree? It's like you don't even understand the basic concept of cause and effect.
yeah sooo true. I can't think of Sc2 without spawn larvae, chrono boost and MULE.
anyway. I'm still curious of blizzard decision on ghost. why would they make it so tanky but expensive?
(compare to HT which is expensive but like paper and BW ghost was sooo weak in hp but great skills!)
and no lock down made me favoring zerg :p
I prefer current ghost to be less in hp, lowering hp and dps but leave the skills. that will make ghost more fun to use!
|
On August 01 2013 20:30 SsDrKosS wrote:
yeah sooo true. I can't think of Sc2 without spawn larvae, chrono boost and MULE.
anyway. I'm still curious of blizzard decision on ghost. why would they make it so tanky but expensive?
(compare to HT which is expensive but like paper and BW ghost was sooo weak in hp but great skills!)
and no lock down made me favoring zerg :p
I prefer current ghost to be less in hp, lowering hp and dps but leave the skills. that will make ghost more fun to use!
100 hps = so tanky.
80 hps = like paper.
?
|
On August 01 2013 20:27 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 20:25 5unrise wrote:
You seem to have a very biased view of the skill level needed to play terran and the strength of terran units. I'm not sure if you add any value to the discussion because you clearly can't think objectively Like half of the Terrans here. But that isn't an argument. Do you have any proof that Terran can't win without greedy 3 CC?
In Terran vs Zerg, Terran does usually go for a 3rd cc for following reasons:
- Match the Zerg economy
- Don't be allin against a 3-base play of Zerg
- because we can invest 400 minerals while our production goes up without it hurting much since the delay is short term, but the benefits are great
Terran isn't really a ton more powerful on 2 OCs especially in terms of timings. If you are going for Hellion + Bio timing with medivacs from 3 barracks before the 3rd CC, you can pressure but you will be crushed by any roach play or delayed tech mass ling/bane. It really isn't an option to play 2 CCs vs Zerg because they can figure out what you are doing (either 3CC or not) by sending an overlord. If they realize its 2 base pressure, you will not scratch them. If they don't you might win.
Alltogether I would still call this out as semi-allin and/or cheesish, because its anything but solid.
|
On August 01 2013 19:26 MTAC wrote:
Mules: Game is designed around them, Terran army is far more mineral heavy, so they need extra income in minerals, Why because Marines die fast in front of AoE. And i'll add that mining a base faster than other races can be an advantage early on, but it's getting far, far worse the longer the game goes on.
The game is designed around all three races having both economic and production speed boosts and if anyone thinks one of them is bad they need to consider removing all of them ... and since injecting larva and chronoboost are both economic and production speed boosts you have to remove all boosts or none at all. Personally I would say the game would be better without any of them, because you would not be able to produce "critical numbers" as easily as it is possible now.
On August 01 2013 20:30 SsDrKosS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 20:20 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:On August 01 2013 19:13 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 08:50 Shiori wrote:
The idea of removing CC lifting/MULEs/Ghosts is absolutely absurd. The game would be cheese or die in every matchup, since you wouldn't be able to expand early (since even a reactive all-in would kill you) and you wouldn't be able to win late (no Ghosts vs Toss late = just leave the game) and you also would have a lot less production since you don't have MULEs. So basically, Terran would be more or less fucked all around. Ghosts: You're simply exaggerating. I've seen Terran compete at the highest level without using any ghosts. If Terrans can beat Rain without ghosts (and they do), then it's absurd to suggest that Terran will die every matchup. Because they won't. The issue is whether they'd keep their 50% or higher win rate. But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. Which might one day be refuted. Time will tell. CC lifting: You haven't spelled out why Terran uniquely depends on the ability to lift its bases. Are you saying Terran is more vulnerable to early game cheese than Protoss? Because it definitely wasn't true in WoL when CC lifting was designed, and I'm not convinced it's true now. Enlighten me: Why does Terran have a special need for flying CCs, but not Protoss or Zerg? Mules: This sounds absurd, I agree, but ask yourself: Why should Terran be able to miner faster than the other races? In terms of mining mules are far more effective than chrono boost overall and even Zerg's larvae production in the long run. They already have a worker advantage from being able to spam flying CCs. So maybe EITHER mules or flying CCs could go and the Terrans would be able to adapt. Ghosts: the only other response Terran has to HTs is tanks, and we all know how Terran does when they get a lot of tanks TvP. CC lifting: TvZ metagame has depended entirely on being able to get a quick 3 command centers to compete with Zerg's fast third base for well over a year now. Removing that is to take the lynchpin of standard Terran TvZ and literally remove it from the game, which is a really good way to break win rates very quickly. MULEs: I'd agree that MULEs are better than chrono boost, but they aren't unilaterally better than larvae-based production. For example, larvae production enables Zerg to totally dominate the air at a moment's notice by spamming mutas or corruptors, which Terran cannot do. For Protoss the really strong production mechanic isn't chrono boost, it's warp gate, and I'm not convinced MULEs are better than that. For instance, MULEs don't allow a Terran to trade armies with a Protoss, and then immediately remax in his opponent's main. Removing MULEs would totally and completely ruin Terran win rates. In fact, all of these things you want to remove are core mechanics that aren't realistically going to leave this game. And that's a good thing, because that would do terrible things to Starcraft II. @GreenGringo Get out. Find another game to entertain yourself. Please. Your "balance" are nothing but nerfs. Seriously, play a few ladder games without MULEs and ghosts and see how far behind you'll be against a competent opponent. The only thing that can snipe HT are battle cruisers and ravens, which surprise, surprise will be feedback by any competent protoss managing his HTs well and backed by a decent gateway/stargate army. You say "But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. " It took me, 2 seconds to realise the implications of removing the ghost... Terrans have flying buildings the same way pylons and creep allow any building to be placed anywhere on the map. You actually think Blizzard didn't run the numbers when they gave out spawn larvae, chrono boost and MULE? Seriously, dude seriously? What are your credentials, 20 pages and you have produced nothing but nerfs disguised as balance. Do you even have a college degree? It's like you don't even understand the basic concept of cause and effect. yeah sooo true. I can't think of Sc2 without spawn larvae, chrono boost and MULE. anyway. I'm still curious of blizzard decision on ghost. why would they make it so tanky but expensive? (compare to HT which is expensive but like paper and BW ghost was sooo weak in hp but great skills!) and no lock down made me favoring zerg :p I prefer current ghost to be less in hp, lowering hp and dps but leave the skills. that will make ghost more fun to use!
Just look at a game of BW ... its pretty much going to look like that with hardly anyone ever reaching 200 supply. Its not the end of the world and will still provide exciting games since every decision becomes more important because you cant just reproduce everything in one round over and over again.
Losing any unit will suck and as a consequence people will have to micro their units much more ...
|
On August 01 2013 20:36 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 20:27 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 20:25 5unrise wrote:
You seem to have a very biased view of the skill level needed to play terran and the strength of terran units. I'm not sure if you add any value to the discussion because you clearly can't think objectively Like half of the Terrans here. But that isn't an argument. Do you have any proof that Terran can't win without greedy 3 CC? In Terran vs Zerg, Terran does usually go for a 3rd cc for following reasons: - Match the Zerg economy - Don't be allin against a 3-base play of Zerg - because we can invest 400 minerals while our production goes up without it hurting much since the delay is short term, but the benefits are great Terran isn't really a ton more powerful on 2 OCs especially in terms of timings. If you are going for Hellion + Bio timing with medivacs from 3 barracks before the 3rd CC, you can pressure but you will be crushed by any roach play or delayed tech mass ling/bane. It really isn't an option to play 2 CCs vs Zerg because they can figure out what you are doing (either 3CC or not) by sending an overlord. If they realize its 2 base pressure, you will not scratch them. If they don't you might win. Alltogether I would still call this out as semi-allin and/or cheesish, because its anything but solid.
People call the 3cc tvz build super greedy because of just how early you get the 3rd cc. I understand that it's not the same as getting a quick 3rd base but still.
|
On August 01 2013 20:36 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 20:27 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 20:25 5unrise wrote:
You seem to have a very biased view of the skill level needed to play terran and the strength of terran units. I'm not sure if you add any value to the discussion because you clearly can't think objectively Like half of the Terrans here. But that isn't an argument. Do you have any proof that Terran can't win without greedy 3 CC? In Terran vs Zerg, Terran does usually go for a 3rd cc for following reasons: - Match the Zerg economy - Don't be allin against a 3-base play of Zerg - because we can invest 400 minerals while our production goes up without it hurting much since the delay is short term, but the benefits are great So luxury, in other words. Protoss doesn't match the Zerg economy and still finds a way to win. You haven't spelled out a single objective reason why Terran needs the fast 3 base more than Protoss would. And in any case it remains a perfectly valid choice for the Terran to not go fast 3 CC.
|
On August 01 2013 20:39 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 20:36 NarutO wrote:On August 01 2013 20:27 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 20:25 5unrise wrote:
You seem to have a very biased view of the skill level needed to play terran and the strength of terran units. I'm not sure if you add any value to the discussion because you clearly can't think objectively Like half of the Terrans here. But that isn't an argument. Do you have any proof that Terran can't win without greedy 3 CC? In Terran vs Zerg, Terran does usually go for a 3rd cc for following reasons: - Match the Zerg economy - Don't be allin against a 3-base play of Zerg - because we can invest 400 minerals while our production goes up without it hurting much since the delay is short term, but the benefits are great Terran isn't really a ton more powerful on 2 OCs especially in terms of timings. If you are going for Hellion + Bio timing with medivacs from 3 barracks before the 3rd CC, you can pressure but you will be crushed by any roach play or delayed tech mass ling/bane. It really isn't an option to play 2 CCs vs Zerg because they can figure out what you are doing (either 3CC or not) by sending an overlord. If they realize its 2 base pressure, you will not scratch them. If they don't you might win. Alltogether I would still call this out as semi-allin and/or cheesish, because its anything but solid. People call the 3cc tvz build super greedy because of just how early you get the 3rd cc. I understand that it's not the same as getting a quick 3rd base but still.
People call triple OC builds "greedy" because they have little clue how the match-up works and probably think we're still in 2011 pre-Queen patch when 2-bases timings could reliably equalize or something.
|
On August 01 2013 20:40 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 20:36 NarutO wrote:On August 01 2013 20:27 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 20:25 5unrise wrote:
You seem to have a very biased view of the skill level needed to play terran and the strength of terran units. I'm not sure if you add any value to the discussion because you clearly can't think objectively Like half of the Terrans here. But that isn't an argument. Do you have any proof that Terran can't win without greedy 3 CC? In Terran vs Zerg, Terran does usually go for a 3rd cc for following reasons: - Match the Zerg economy - Don't be allin against a 3-base play of Zerg - because we can invest 400 minerals while our production goes up without it hurting much since the delay is short term, but the benefits are great So luxury, in other words. Protoss doesn't match the Zerg economy and still finds a way to win. You haven't spelled out a single objective reason why Terran needs the fast 3 base more than Protoss would. And in any case it remains a perfectly valid choice for the Terran to not go fast 3 CC.
Protoss has high tech units which enable him to go toe to toe with the Zerg. Terran only has lousy bio which doesnt really work well against Zerg unless you have a HUGE reproduction capability.
|
On August 01 2013 20:30 SsDrKosS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 20:20 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On August 01 2013 19:30 ChristianS wrote:On August 01 2013 19:13 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 08:50 Shiori wrote:
The idea of removing CC lifting/MULEs/Ghosts is absolutely absurd. The game would be cheese or die in every matchup, since you wouldn't be able to expand early (since even a reactive all-in would kill you) and you wouldn't be able to win late (no Ghosts vs Toss late = just leave the game) and you also would have a lot less production since you don't have MULEs. So basically, Terran would be more or less fucked all around. Ghosts: You're simply exaggerating. I've seen Terran compete at the highest level without using any ghosts. If Terrans can beat Rain without ghosts (and they do), then it's absurd to suggest that Terran will die every matchup. Because they won't. The issue is whether they'd keep their 50% or higher win rate. But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. Which might one day be refuted. Time will tell. CC lifting: You haven't spelled out why Terran uniquely depends on the ability to lift its bases. Are you saying Terran is more vulnerable to early game cheese than Protoss? Because it definitely wasn't true in WoL when CC lifting was designed, and I'm not convinced it's true now. Enlighten me: Why does Terran have a special need for flying CCs, but not Protoss or Zerg? Mules: This sounds absurd, I agree, but ask yourself: Why should Terran be able to miner faster than the other races? In terms of mining mules are far more effective than chrono boost overall and even Zerg's larvae production in the long run. They already have a worker advantage from being able to spam flying CCs. So maybe EITHER mules or flying CCs could go and the Terrans would be able to adapt. Ghosts: the only other response Terran has to HTs is tanks, and we all know how Terran does when they get a lot of tanks TvP. CC lifting: TvZ metagame has depended entirely on being able to get a quick 3 command centers to compete with Zerg's fast third base for well over a year now. Removing that is to take the lynchpin of standard Terran TvZ and literally remove it from the game, which is a really good way to break win rates very quickly. MULEs: I'd agree that MULEs are better than chrono boost, but they aren't unilaterally better than larvae-based production. For example, larvae production enables Zerg to totally dominate the air at a moment's notice by spamming mutas or corruptors, which Terran cannot do. For Protoss the really strong production mechanic isn't chrono boost, it's warp gate, and I'm not convinced MULEs are better than that. For instance, MULEs don't allow a Terran to trade armies with a Protoss, and then immediately remax in his opponent's main. Removing MULEs would totally and completely ruin Terran win rates. In fact, all of these things you want to remove are core mechanics that aren't realistically going to leave this game. And that's a good thing, because that would do terrible things to Starcraft II. @GreenGringo Get out. Find another game to entertain yourself. Please. Your "balance" are nothing but nerfs. Seriously, play a few ladder games without MULEs and ghosts and see how far behind you'll be against a competent opponent. The only thing that can snipe HT are battle cruisers and ravens, which surprise, surprise will be feedback by any competent protoss managing his HTs well and backed by a decent gateway/stargate army. You say "But here you're committing yourself to the position that Terrans will NEVER figure out a way to defeat templar without using ghosts. " It took me, 2 seconds to realise the implications of removing the ghost... Terrans have flying buildings the same way pylons and creep allow any building to be placed anywhere on the map. You actually think Blizzard didn't run the numbers when they gave out spawn larvae, chrono boost and MULE? Seriously, dude seriously? What are your credentials, 20 pages and you have produced nothing but nerfs disguised as balance. Do you even have a college degree? It's like you don't even understand the basic concept of cause and effect. yeah sooo true. I can't think of Sc2 without spawn larvae, chrono boost and MULE. anyway. I'm still curious of blizzard decision on ghost. why would they make it so tanky but expensive? (compare to HT which is expensive but like paper and BW ghost was sooo weak in hp but great skills!) and no lock down made me favoring zerg :p I prefer current ghost to be less in hp, lowering hp and dps but leave the skills. that will make ghost more fun to use!
They probably made ghosts tankier than other spellcasters so that nukes wouldn't be too hard to land, not that they aren't hard to land already, but at least it gives that extra few seconds for you to potentially get that awesome piece of pwning to land.
|
On August 01 2013 20:41 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 20:39 bo1b wrote:On August 01 2013 20:36 NarutO wrote:On August 01 2013 20:27 GreenGringo wrote:On August 01 2013 20:25 5unrise wrote:
You seem to have a very biased view of the skill level needed to play terran and the strength of terran units. I'm not sure if you add any value to the discussion because you clearly can't think objectively Like half of the Terrans here. But that isn't an argument. Do you have any proof that Terran can't win without greedy 3 CC? In Terran vs Zerg, Terran does usually go for a 3rd cc for following reasons: - Match the Zerg economy - Don't be allin against a 3-base play of Zerg - because we can invest 400 minerals while our production goes up without it hurting much since the delay is short term, but the benefits are great Terran isn't really a ton more powerful on 2 OCs especially in terms of timings. If you are going for Hellion + Bio timing with medivacs from 3 barracks before the 3rd CC, you can pressure but you will be crushed by any roach play or delayed tech mass ling/bane. It really isn't an option to play 2 CCs vs Zerg because they can figure out what you are doing (either 3CC or not) by sending an overlord. If they realize its 2 base pressure, you will not scratch them. If they don't you might win. Alltogether I would still call this out as semi-allin and/or cheesish, because its anything but solid. People call the 3cc tvz build super greedy because of just how early you get the 3rd cc. I understand that it's not the same as getting a quick 3rd base but still. People call triple OC builds "greedy" because they have little clue how the match-up works and probably think we're still in 2011 pre-Queen patch when 2-bases timings could reliably equalize or something.
More like 2011 pre-Ghost patch, when Terran could just do whatever and then stabilize by massing ghost/tank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
