EPTIt's not very interesting in its current shape ; it's very powerful early and makes P safe from a lot of aggressions, and becomes slowly (nearly) useless later in my opinion.
edit : Sorry, I meant the Nexus Canon, not the whole MSC design!
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 676
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
eXdeath
France66 Posts
It's not very interesting in its current shape ; it's very powerful early and makes P safe from a lot of aggressions, and becomes slowly (nearly) useless later in my opinion. edit : Sorry, I meant the Nexus Canon, not the whole MSC design! | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 08 2013 00:33 eXdeath wrote: They could change the MSC so that it scales with the forge upgrades, or add a specific mid/late game upgrade. This way they could nerf it early game while keeping it interesting and useful all game long. It's not very interesting in its current shape, it's very powerful early and make P safe from a lot of aggressions, and becomes slowly (nearly) useless later in my opinion. It's brutally interesing in its current shape in PvZ and PvP. It's the biggest reason why those matchups are so good to watch these days. | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
On August 08 2013 00:35 Big J wrote: It's brutally interesing in its current shape in PvZ and PvP. It's the biggest reason why those matchups are so good to watch these days. As we could see with the hellbat, if one match up suffers from a unit, it has to be changed regardless. The hellbat was crucial for Terran midgame vs Protoss. Now its gone and we struggle. The hellbat made up for the disadvantageous position that did occur from the unpunishable greed in the earlygame because it was slightly too strong in its direct engagement vs Zealots. Now... there is nothing so the argument that PvZ and PvP gets interesting due to it doesn't hold up. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 08 2013 00:38 NarutO wrote: As we could see with the hellbat, if one match up suffers from a unit, it has to be changed regardless. The hellbat was crucial for Terran midgame vs Protoss. Now its gone and we struggle. The hellbat made up for the disadvantageous position that did occur from the unpunishable greed in the earlygame because it was slightly too strong in its direct engagement vs Zealots. Now... there is nothing so the argument that PvZ and PvP gets interesting due to it doesn't hold up. well, as long as they keep the recall and the basic stats as they are, I don't mind if they tweak the time warp and/or the PO. | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
a. not massable b. not deathballish c. force interesting/diverse gameplay. Instead we should focus on some horrible/onedimensial units such as voidrays, thors, corruptors, vikings, archons, roaches or ultras. OR underused units like raven or hydralisk. | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
On August 08 2013 00:48 saddaromma wrote: Can't understand why people persist on changing good units in order to balance the game. MSC and Widow mines are so far one of the best and entertaining units in the game. They have three ever so important qualities of a good unit. a. not massable b. not deathballish c. force interesting/diverse gameplay. Instead we should focus on some horrible/onedimensial units such as voidrays, thors, corruptors, vikings, archons, roaches or ultras. OR underused units like raven or hydralisk. The MSC allows for unpunishable greed and creates a too strong midgame for Protoss in PvT. Timewarp is a very strong ability especially combined with pressure and/or allins and Terran is as fragile as it gets when we get hit without perfect reaction. Allins of Protoss - while being very diverse - all require different reaction from Terran and were hard to stop in WoL - now the timings hit harder because they can be played safer and greedier and the allins have an additional tool with the MSC. Thats why people complain about it. I really don't mind the defensive potential if it stays a defensive potential, but currently it prevents Terran from playing greedy while simuntaniously allowing Protoss to be exactly that. | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
T/P have more mobility than Zerg whereas Zerg is supposed to be the mobile Race. The only mobile zergling has been killed in HOTS, it counter nearly nothing, T/P base are nearly immune to them thx to mine/hellbat/free siege tank/ recall/ photon overcharge. Meantime, medivac with boost, warprimes, MSC with recall apply so much pressure, but Zerg can't do the same. T/P has got a lot of tech free/ cost effective stuff while Zerg always need to pay two expansive upgrades for hydra, but this unit is still worst than a 50mineral marine and is so easy to counter with FF/colossus/storm (at this time, naniwa just beats mass hydra without colossus just with void and FF). Meantime P/T has got free upgrade : hallucination/siege tank/seeker etc... Drop + nyndus still too costy and most of the time unviable, cause Zerg unit are not good on low number, and nyndus is too easy to kill and cargo units way too slowly to be as effective as drop. Zerg T1 was already the less cost effective units, it now worst when T/P has now WM/MSC/speedy warprisme/medivac. And with the infested Terran nerf, Zerg has really a lack of anti-air at the moment skytoss/skyterran is so strong. Viper is cool but too costy on gaz/supply/tech, it's really hard to afford before late game, and even in the late game you prefer to get more of the only strong unit you have. Ultra is correct but it's not really fun : A clik that all. No more, charge. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 08 2013 01:26 Sated wrote: Anyway, this is all irrelevant. I only mentioned my PvT win-rate to show how strange I find this generalisation: "Try to play Terran at high level and trust me, you'll have zero trouble understanding our point of view." Talking about your PvT winrate is irrelevant because you're neither Terran nor high level; the lowest Protoss I face have around ~2.1k points, up to 2.6+k if I convert points from GM to Master, so you're hundreds if not more than a thousand points away from them. Just see by yourself and ask the other high level Terrans posting on this site what they think about TvP. This goes hand-in-hand with the statistical data that shows there isn't a balance issue at play here. PvT is a very even match-up when you consider as a whole the data available. I've yet to see an analysis that suggests there is a massive win-rate problem. As I said earlier, "Winrates also say nothing about coinflip issues, nothing about the respective difficulty to play for each side, nothing about the risk/ratio for certain things, and they say nothing about the potential each side still holds in developing its play against the other race." I expect winrates to adjust in the next months anyway, it just seems inevitable to me. It's only a matter of time. No, I don't think they're as good as you at executing an attack, but I can just as easily point out that I'm not as good as your opponents at defending an attack. I know that you think you're being clever by taking swipes at my ranking, but it doesn't help your argument one bit. It just makes you look petty. Again you make the same mistake, because you're forgetting that Rain is much better than me at defending in the same way Bomber is much better than my opponents at attacking. What's even more problematic about this argument is that you're taking a single game and suggesting it is representative of all the games. I could just as easily cherry-pick a game were the Protoss doesn't defend and ends up dying because of it, but that would be irrelevant because it isn't single data points that matter; it's the spectrum of data that matters. You're the one being mistaken, because you wrongly assume things will even out because the defender is also better. But no, it doesn't work like that at all, and I didn't mention the Bomber vs Rain by accident. Both played close to optimally their respective plans, and it resulted in a hilariously one-sided stomp. Why? Because in this case (Marines/Hellions attack after expand), when the defender plays optimally, what the attacker is doing doesn't matter: his attack simply won't pay off, and he's left extremely vulnerable to any immediate counter (= a random Pylon which could be anywhere) since he's building his bio infrastructure behind. You have absolutely no need to show me what happens when the defender fails; I could pull out dozens of games like that from my personal bag. It doesn't matter, because in all of them Protoss doesn't scout correctly or reacts in some horrible way (top100 GM a-moving all his Probes vs 6 Hellions? check). What matters is what happens if Protoss plays correctly, or even perfectly, and in this case we have Rain vs Bomber. Hence why this example is representative, while the dozens of others Probes bbq I and you could bring up don't matter. You can't know this because you don't play Terran at high level, while I do, so I know what happens when Protoss defends adequately, because my opponent have generally no trouble doing so. | ||
|
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
T/P have more mobility than Zerg whereas Zerg is supposed to be the mobile Race. The only mobile zergling has been killed in HOTS, it counter nearly nothing, T/P base are nearly immune to them thx to mine/hellbat/free siege tank/ recall/ photon overcharge. Meantime, medivac with boost, warprimes, MSC with recall apply so much pressure, but Zerg can't do the same. Yeah tell that to Life or Jaedong or any number of pro zergs. Someone needs to tell them that lings suck  T/P has got a lot of tech free/ cost effective stuff while Zerg always need to pay two expansive upgrades for hydra, but this unit is still worst than a 50mineral marine and is so easy to counter with FF/colossus/storm (at this time, naniwa just beats mass hydra without colossus just with void and FF). Meantime P/T has got free upgrade : hallucination/siege tank/seeker etc... The race with broodlords. Swarmhosts and infestors shouldn't really complain about other races getting free stuff. | ||
|
Bouli
Belgium17 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On August 08 2013 00:48 saddaromma wrote: Can't understand why people persist on changing good units in order to balance the game. MSC and Widow mines are so far one of the best and entertaining units in the game. They have three ever so important qualities of a good unit. a. not massable b. not deathballish c. force interesting/diverse gameplay. Instead we should focus on some horrible/onedimensial units such as voidrays, thors, corruptors, vikings, archons, roaches or ultras. OR underused units like raven or hydralisk. The Widow Mine is rather terrible as a unit because of its "once in a blue moon" shots, which is the one reason why it doesnt synergize well with anything. Sure it is a great unit for harrassment and base defense and luring an opponent into, but it doesnt make sense to base your army around it like it does for the Siege Tank for example. Blizzard (David Kim) is always stating that mech (Siege Tanks) is boring and yet they give Terrans another static unit? They should have redesigned the Warhound instead ... or simply copied the Goliath. The way it shoots also makes the Widow Mine a "non-active" unit which you cant really use to attack the enemy if he doesnt want to be hit. Thus the unit has about zero skill limit with the positioning being the only thing to think about. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 08 2013 02:43 Bouli wrote: Tbh no1 in this thread is skilled enough to blame their losses on balance Even if this is true, we are still allowed to analyze progames and discuss how certain stuff just cannot be dealt with properly at all, or at least not often enough, aren't we? On August 08 2013 02:40 MstrJinbo wrote: The race with broodlords. Swarmhosts and infestors shouldn't really complain about other races getting free stuff. Lol. First of, it's a player that is complaining, not a race.  Secondly, all of the stuff you mentioned costs a ton of resources, e.g. a broodlord costs 300/250, which isn't free. | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Pirfiktshon
United States1072 Posts
"Harassment isn't supposed to do damage when the defender plays optimally..." Explain the oracle...... then talk | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On August 08 2013 00:48 saddaromma wrote: Can't understand why people persist on changing good units in order to balance the game. MSC and Widow mines are so far one of the best and entertaining units in the game. They have three ever so important qualities of a good unit. a. not massable b. not deathballish c. force interesting/diverse gameplay. Instead we should focus on some horrible/onedimensial units such as voidrays, thors, corruptors, vikings, archons, roaches or ultras. OR underused units like raven or hydralisk. You didnt mention colossous, i hope it was a mistake | ||
|
Pirfiktshon
United States1072 Posts
So you are saying every pro Terran doesn't take damage from it..... | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
| ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
| ||
