|
On September 17 2013 16:52 NarutO wrote:
Are you serious? Banelings are exactly what you said about the widowmine. They are anti-death-ball as you need to split against them and increase skill ceiling for Terran. You can instantly tell the difference between a grandmaster and a good progamer, hell even between progamers there is a huge difference in ability to split fast and how well. Banelings are cost-inefficient when the Terran playes well.
Low-Level is no concern, low-level players always lose due to crucial mistakes that can be fixed, if you would balance a game around that level, you might as well have the units autosplit and automatically build supply depots / overlords / pylons.
Additionally: widowmines are massable but I am not sure how clever it is to mass them. Depending on the army of the opponent, 15 widowmines for example are 30 supply and once the shots are gone, you better hope they hit hard otherwise you have 30 supply that is useless for the next 40 seconds
banelings are zergs deathball, massable and have no defender advantage whatsoever. More to that. they make enemy's defender advantage useless.blowing up buildings ezpz.
|
I actually really like how mechanically demanding tvz is for both sides of the matchups, and without banelings/widowmines that probably wouldn't be the case.
That said I wouldn't say no to some transitions from biomine and muta/ling/bling.
|
On September 17 2013 17:10 bo1b wrote:
I actually really like how mechanically demanding tvz is for both sides of the matchups, and without banelings/widowmines that probably wouldn't be the case.
That said I wouldn't say no to some transitions from biomine and muta/ling/bling.
I think it would be nice for the match-up to be more similar to the terran mirror. It requires similar mechanical proficiency, but it adds both strategic and positional elements.
Maybe if ghosts, ravens, siege tanks(!), thors, mech transitions were all more viable, instead of just bio all the time. That sounds like the most obvious way to go about fixing it to me.
|
ZvT is messed up designwise. MMMM is too strong while the T2 and T3 support units of T are either too weak (tank/thor/ghost) or take too long to transition to (BC/raven). imo it would be the best it MMMM was viable early and midgame and then Z gets to a comp that completely crushes it without support units. for example buff ultras a lot so they laugh at MMMM and buff tanks/thors, for example +dmg to armored or massive to help MMMM fight ultras etc. would be a lot more versatile, both sides would have to play a lot more strategic (do i get ultras/tanks out or do i try to kill him before, do i delay upgrade x or not etc.) + scouting would be more needed again. basically we would have TvZ being a strategy game and not a "who has the better mechanics wins" game with very little decisions to do.
stuff like making roach hydra or SHs more viable vs MMMM or buffing thors AA splash to help vs mutas etc. would also all help to get back different VIABLE styles for both sides etc. at DH seeing some Ts adding 1-2 thors later on was already nice to see but blizz has to change stuff to make it and other comps more viable for both sides.
|
On September 17 2013 17:18 Decendos wrote:
ZvT is messed up designwise. MMMM is too strong while the T2 and T3 support units of T are either too weak (tank/thor/ghost) or take too long to transition to (BC/raven). imo it would be the best it MMMM was viable early and midgame and then Z gets to a comp that completely crushes it without support units. for example buff ultras a lot so they laugh at MMMM and buff tanks/thors, for example +dmg to armored or massive to help MMMM fight ultras etc. would be a lot more versatile, both sides would have to play a lot more strategic (do i get ultras/tanks out or do i try to kill him before, do i delay upgrade x or not etc.) + scouting would be more needed again. basically we would have TvZ being a strategy game and not a "who has the better mechanics wins" game with very little decisions to do.
stuff like making roach hydra or SHs more viable vs MMMM or buffing thors AA splash to help vs mutas etc. would also all help to get back different VIABLE styles for both sides etc. at DH seeing some Ts adding 1-2 thors later on was already nice to see but blizz has to change stuff to make it and other comps more viable for both sides.
Hard counters are usually boring design.
It will turn the game into cat and mouse.
|
On September 17 2013 16:42 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 16:34 bo1b wrote:On September 17 2013 16:01 NarutO wrote:
I hope people realize that current ZvT is demanding, but not imbalanced. While I would like to see a change, I would like to see a change to make the game more entertaining and complex, not because I think something is imbalanced im TvZ. We saw DRG state that control usually decides who wins those battles and while Zerg previously had the option to either not micro at all or micro to some extent / set up flanks, now you have to control your army in fights which is a good thing.
Games that show good control:
Scarlett/Bomber
hyvaa/INnoVation
DRG/INnoVation
Serral/SuperNoVa (partly good control, partly good decisions)
While I believe it should go without saying, I will still point out that people should realize that nerfing the widowmine doesn't go without buffing another aspect of Terran, as tanks would see no midgame timing allowing the Zerg to freely do whatever he wants converting HotS basically back to WoL. In addition, tanks cannot retreat nor move easily on creep, while the widowmine does allow it. Terran does play it, because its the only viable option currently and nerfing it severely will lead to not just Zerg dominace, but utter destruction of Terran. An aspect we never saw the other way around. To proof that point, you can have a look at any TvZ in which the mines didn't detonate as well as they can/should/Terran wants them to and the result often times is a complete destruction of the Terran force and/or retreat with as much as possible. While I feel the widowmines are a good thing "FOR ZERG" as in they increase the skill ceiling and make their engagements harder and more demanding which is good, becuase a good player will always show while a bad player won't I think its bad from a Terran aspect of view. Besides mines being relatively random, I feel targeting with mines is no reliable skill. While there are some Terrans that occasionally (or in INnoVations case often) targets with mines, I still feel it has a tad of randomness in it.
I would love to see something done with the siege tank, but the truth is, the siege tank is very good in TvT and making it better vs Zerg with for example an upgrade that allows movement speed and/or faster siege/unsiege you will effectively make TvT mech a lot stronger. I don't know if that is what Blizzard wants, but that would be my point :x
What in your opinion is the biggest problem with going bio/tank vs Z at the moment? You can sustain a higher mutalisk count, because they have high regeneration so a Thor won't scare them away easy nor will marines so they can pick off tanks easily while you push. Other than that, due to higher mutalisk counts (as you will sustain more) the harass will quickly become a problem. Zerg will fly circles around you and your base and while there is no midgame timing with tanks to begin with, you will be even further delayed. Another point would be the transition is a lot better now. While Infestors are weaker overall, ultralisks are insane now. If you would play muta/ling/bane vs bio tank and even assume its WoL status until the new ultralisks are out, the ultralisks will shit all over your marine/tank army. Its not even a competition. So... those are the concerns and the reason we don't see muta/ling/bane. Zerg will have 4 base saturated before you even move out and potentially hive at 12 again.
Leaving aside the mutalisk problem (because good positioning with marines and thors might prove to be enough to protect tanks), one way to buff terran late-game against ultras is to give sieged tanks 75 damage against armored. What this does is take 7 tank shots to kill an ultra, instead of the current 10. So 7 tanks 1-shot an ultra. With good target firing, tanks might actually be a counter again.
It doesn't matter for most other compositions.
a) roaches are worse against mech, 2 shots to kill - and the counter to mech is SH, infestor, BL, viper anyway
b) Marauders die in 2 shots instead of 3, but I think that's a good thing. Marauders can still kill tanks fast, but they cannot just walk through entrenched positions as well. And pure bio play is pretty weak in TvT anyway.
c) Stalkers die faster, but protoss immo, colossus, archon, tempest, zealot still destroys tanks.
d) tank v tank is more punishing for the attacker, favouring positional play and transitions.
e) Thors are weaker counters to tanks (but how many people use thors to bust tank lines these days...)
f) SH die faster to sieged tank shots (but they could just walk away)
e) Infestors are armored, but still die in 2 shots. No difference.
So this makes TvZ more positional. Good muta control will snipe enough tanks for ultras to win the fight, bad muta control or good terran positional play will let the terran have enough siege tanks to counter ultras.
The elephants remaining in the room:
a) Can you build up a tank count fast enough with mass-ling-bane-muta roaming the map while siege tanks are as immobile as they are?
b) Will the blind-spot on siege tanks in conjunction with the ability of the Z to produce 4-6 ultras at a time lead to the seige tanks being eaten up before the ultras are dead, or can good target firing mitigate that?
Thoughts, gut feelings, calculations, missed aspects?
|
On September 17 2013 17:30 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 17:18 Decendos wrote:
ZvT is messed up designwise. MMMM is too strong while the T2 and T3 support units of T are either too weak (tank/thor/ghost) or take too long to transition to (BC/raven). imo it would be the best it MMMM was viable early and midgame and then Z gets to a comp that completely crushes it without support units. for example buff ultras a lot so they laugh at MMMM and buff tanks/thors, for example +dmg to armored or massive to help MMMM fight ultras etc. would be a lot more versatile, both sides would have to play a lot more strategic (do i get ultras/tanks out or do i try to kill him before, do i delay upgrade x or not etc.) + scouting would be more needed again. basically we would have TvZ being a strategy game and not a "who has the better mechanics wins" game with very little decisions to do.
stuff like making roach hydra or SHs more viable vs MMMM or buffing thors AA splash to help vs mutas etc. would also all help to get back different VIABLE styles for both sides etc. at DH seeing some Ts adding 1-2 thors later on was already nice to see but blizz has to change stuff to make it and other comps more viable for both sides. Hard counters are usually boring design. It will turn the game into cat and mouse.
thats not true. Most units are hardcounters to certain other units anyways. that does not make most units boring.
Not that i agree with descendos suggestion in particular, but he is right at the core. Compositions need to be counterable to the degree that players must switch up thwir unit mix. if they arent, thats when we get this form of "never transition" gameplay that makes everbody approach the game the same way.
|
On September 17 2013 17:33 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 16:42 NarutO wrote:On September 17 2013 16:34 bo1b wrote:On September 17 2013 16:01 NarutO wrote:
I hope people realize that current ZvT is demanding, but not imbalanced. While I would like to see a change, I would like to see a change to make the game more entertaining and complex, not because I think something is imbalanced im TvZ. We saw DRG state that control usually decides who wins those battles and while Zerg previously had the option to either not micro at all or micro to some extent / set up flanks, now you have to control your army in fights which is a good thing.
Games that show good control:
Scarlett/Bomber
hyvaa/INnoVation
DRG/INnoVation
Serral/SuperNoVa (partly good control, partly good decisions)
While I believe it should go without saying, I will still point out that people should realize that nerfing the widowmine doesn't go without buffing another aspect of Terran, as tanks would see no midgame timing allowing the Zerg to freely do whatever he wants converting HotS basically back to WoL. In addition, tanks cannot retreat nor move easily on creep, while the widowmine does allow it. Terran does play it, because its the only viable option currently and nerfing it severely will lead to not just Zerg dominace, but utter destruction of Terran. An aspect we never saw the other way around. To proof that point, you can have a look at any TvZ in which the mines didn't detonate as well as they can/should/Terran wants them to and the result often times is a complete destruction of the Terran force and/or retreat with as much as possible. While I feel the widowmines are a good thing "FOR ZERG" as in they increase the skill ceiling and make their engagements harder and more demanding which is good, becuase a good player will always show while a bad player won't I think its bad from a Terran aspect of view. Besides mines being relatively random, I feel targeting with mines is no reliable skill. While there are some Terrans that occasionally (or in INnoVations case often) targets with mines, I still feel it has a tad of randomness in it.
I would love to see something done with the siege tank, but the truth is, the siege tank is very good in TvT and making it better vs Zerg with for example an upgrade that allows movement speed and/or faster siege/unsiege you will effectively make TvT mech a lot stronger. I don't know if that is what Blizzard wants, but that would be my point :x
What in your opinion is the biggest problem with going bio/tank vs Z at the moment? You can sustain a higher mutalisk count, because they have high regeneration so a Thor won't scare them away easy nor will marines so they can pick off tanks easily while you push. Other than that, due to higher mutalisk counts (as you will sustain more) the harass will quickly become a problem. Zerg will fly circles around you and your base and while there is no midgame timing with tanks to begin with, you will be even further delayed. Another point would be the transition is a lot better now. While Infestors are weaker overall, ultralisks are insane now. If you would play muta/ling/bane vs bio tank and even assume its WoL status until the new ultralisks are out, the ultralisks will shit all over your marine/tank army. Its not even a competition. So... those are the concerns and the reason we don't see muta/ling/bane. Zerg will have 4 base saturated before you even move out and potentially hive at 12 again. Leaving aside the mutalisk problem (because good positioning with marines and thors might prove to be enough to protect tanks), one way to buff terran late-game against ultras is to give sieged tanks 75 damage against armored. What this does is take 7 tank shots to kill an ultra, instead of the current 10. So 7 tanks 1-shot an ultra. With good target firing, tanks might actually be a counter again. It doesn't matter for most other compositions. a) roaches are worse against mech, 2 shots to kill - and the counter to mech is SH, infestor, BL, viper anyway b) Marauders die in 2 shots instead of 3, but I think that's a good thing. Marauders can still kill tanks fast, but they cannot just walk through entrenched positions as well. And pure bio play is pretty weak in TvT anyway. c) Stalkers die faster, but protoss immo, colossus, archon, tempest, zealot still destroys tanks. d) tank v tank is more punishing for the attacker, favouring positional play and transitions. e) Thors are weaker counters to tanks (but how many people use thors to bust tank lines these days...) f) SH die faster to sieged tank shots (but they could just walk away) e) Infestors are armored, but still die in 2 shots. No difference. So this makes TvZ more positional. Good muta control will snipe enough tanks for ultras to win the fight, bad muta control or good terran positional play will let the terran have enough siege tanks to counter ultras. The elephants remaining in the room: a) Can you build up a tank count fast enough with mass-ling-bane-muta roaming the map while siege tanks are as immobile as they are? b) Will the blind-spot on siege tanks in conjunction with the ability of the Z to produce 4-6 ultras at a time lead to the seige tanks being eaten up before the ultras are dead, or can good target firing mitigate that? Thoughts, gut feelings, calculations, missed aspects?
I approve of this. it's exactly the number I suggested in my "main target buff", though a little different as it is not a buff vs archons/zealots/hellbats while the buff vs marauder/roach/stalker might be too big because of the splash.
|
If you want such a simple change, why don't you create 3-4 simple relatively balanced maps (you can modify existing ones ofcourse) and let good players play Terran vs Zerg on them? Its really not that hard and it would actually be benefitial to the discussion.
Additionally please also let TvT be played out, as I believe this could be changing the TvT match up by a lot (which is not nesseccary a good thing right now, as TvT is brilliant)
|
On September 17 2013 17:50 NarutO wrote:
If you want such a simple change, why don't you create 3-4 simple relatively balanced maps (you can modify existing ones ofcourse) and let good players play Terran vs Zerg on them? Its really not that hard and it would actually be benefitial to the discussion.
Additionally please also let TvT be played out, as I believe this could be changing the TvT match up by a lot (which is not nesseccary a good thing right now, as TvT is brilliant)
I have before, but it's really hard to find any players that test such maps. Especially somewhat equally skilled onces.
|
On September 17 2013 17:30 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 17:18 Decendos wrote:
ZvT is messed up designwise. MMMM is too strong while the T2 and T3 support units of T are either too weak (tank/thor/ghost) or take too long to transition to (BC/raven). imo it would be the best it MMMM was viable early and midgame and then Z gets to a comp that completely crushes it without support units. for example buff ultras a lot so they laugh at MMMM and buff tanks/thors, for example +dmg to armored or massive to help MMMM fight ultras etc. would be a lot more versatile, both sides would have to play a lot more strategic (do i get ultras/tanks out or do i try to kill him before, do i delay upgrade x or not etc.) + scouting would be more needed again. basically we would have TvZ being a strategy game and not a "who has the better mechanics wins" game with very little decisions to do.
stuff like making roach hydra or SHs more viable vs MMMM or buffing thors AA splash to help vs mutas etc. would also all help to get back different VIABLE styles for both sides etc. at DH seeing some Ts adding 1-2 thors later on was already nice to see but blizz has to change stuff to make it and other comps more viable for both sides. Hard counters are usually boring design. It will turn the game into cat and mouse.
well it doesnt have to be "omg he has 2 ultras and i have no tank, gg" or "omg he built 3 tanks my ultras are now useless" like it is with tempests vs BLs which is just beyond stupid. but have MMMM be so weak that once Z reaches 5-6 ultras T needs to get tanks and have those tanks buffed to a level they deal with ultras a lot better than right now. its just an example but its a good one since right now MMMM all game long crushing even T3 Z is as stupid as T not being able to transition out of MMMM. both needs to be fixed by buffing UP T T2/T3 and buffing Z to deal with MMMM so T has to transition. would make for so much better games and more different unit comps, scouting, strategic play instead of the "mechanics only" TvZ we have since months now.
|
On September 17 2013 17:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 17:50 NarutO wrote:
If you want such a simple change, why don't you create 3-4 simple relatively balanced maps (you can modify existing ones ofcourse) and let good players play Terran vs Zerg on them? Its really not that hard and it would actually be benefitial to the discussion.
Additionally please also let TvT be played out, as I believe this could be changing the TvT match up by a lot (which is not nesseccary a good thing right now, as TvT is brilliant) I have before, but it's really hard to find any players that test such maps. Especially somewhat equally skilled onces.
I don't know any top people, but I imagine asking NarutO himself, TheDwf, Blade, Teoita maybe some younger pros like Serral, Suppy, Xenocider might get some positive responses. I'm willing to write to anyone and arrange the games, don't promise results though.
Big J, would you want to make the maps yourself?
|
I am pretty sure Downfall vs Delphi would be a very even and good match, I am also pretty sure they would play. Besides that I bet there are enough players on a good level that would be willing to play.
|
On September 17 2013 17:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
Leaving aside the mutalisk problem (because good positioning with marines and thors might prove to be enough to protect tanks), one way to buff terran late-game against ultras is to give sieged tanks 75 damage against armored. What this does is take 7 tank shots to kill an ultra, instead of the current 10. So 7 tanks 1-shot an ultra. With good target firing, tanks might actually be a counter again.
It doesn't matter for most other compositions.
[...]
a) roaches are worse against mech, 2 shots to kill - and the counter to mech is SH, infestor, BL, viper anyway
[...]
Thoughts, gut feelings, calculations, missed aspects?
Yes - this would kill roach/hydra play against marine/tank terran.
And right now that's the only serious alternative to 4M vs. ling/bane/muta.
|
yeah, balancechanges shouldnt be too much of a problem. just tell me which ones and on which map and I can upload them in 1/2 hour or 1 hour (coming home in a few minutes).
|
On September 17 2013 18:26 Big J wrote:
yeah, balancechanges shouldnt be too much of a problem. just tell me which ones and on which map and I can upload them in 1/2 hour or 1 hour (coming home in a few minutes).
I think it needs some hype and exposure. Maybe 50$ tournament with a decent caster on weekly basis. Something along Balance Test Cup.
|
I will just leave that here to give people a hint/an idea about the match ups. Its data from september #1 of WCS, IEM, GSTL and WCG which took part in august but I also did seperate it from the winrate to show the current trend
Protoss vs Terran
64–44 (59%) WCG Korea
25-17 (60%) WCS Korea S3
55-39 (59%) IEM NY Qualifier Korea
1-6 (14%) GSTL
145-106 (57,77%) Winrate with WCG
81-62 (56,64%) Winrate without WCG
Gamesource is Aligulac
Terran vs Zerg
IEM NY Korean/TW Qualifier
TvZ 17-35 (33%)
WCS Season 3 Korea
Overall: 20-17 (54%)
Up&Down: 9-4 (69%)
Code S: 11-13 (46%)
WCG Korea 2013 Qualifier
Overall: TvZ 51-48 (52%)
Group Stage: 47-46 (51%)
Main Tournament: 4-2 (67%)
Overall: 88-100 (46,81%) (includes WCG)
TvZ 41-53 (43,01%) without WCG
|
On September 17 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 08:14 MarlieChurphy wrote:On September 17 2013 07:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 17 2013 07:09 MarlieChurphy wrote:
So in light of the recent SK MC Post about balance among other things, he mentions that widow mines and low teir terran units counter hive tech zerg units too easily. ZvT is stagnated to MnMnMnWM (vikings if u go broodlord ofcourse) vs ling/bane/muta - hive, and zergs can't really do anything until hive tech. This is less about the strength of low tier units and more to do that neither Thors nor Battlecruisers provide anything of value that the Marine and the Marauder already provides. You are able to access Seige Tanks in the same tier as Hellions and Widow Mines making it the only low tier unit in the terran arsenal that sees little play outside of TvT. Colossus provides something that no other Protoss unit provides. Broodlords/Ultralisks provides something no other zerg units provides. Why should the terrans pay 300/200 for a flying stimmed marine? (Battlecruiser) Why would the terrans pay 300/200 for a slow stimmed marauder? (Thor) For the sake of argument lets say your are 100% accurate. There is no way they can nerf marines and marauders at this point, and buffing thors and BCs still doesn't solve the initial problem. (why would you waste your time teching to those even if they are slightly better/worth it when the other shit does just fine) I wasn't talking about buffing. A Battlecruiser is a unit that deals 6 damage every .23 seconds making it not much different from a stimmed marine. It has similar range and is slower. There is no tactical reason to ever build one. A colossus acts different than either Templars OR stalkers Or zealots Or immortals. A Broodlord has better range than either Hydra, Roach, or Mutalisk As tools you actually build them not only for their power, but because they allow you to do what you can't normally do. Battlecruisers don't provide that. Vikings *BARELY* provide that and only because Colossus exist. I'm not saying Terran needs buffs. I'm saying there is no need to pay 200 gas for something you already have that costs less gas. Its not a nerf this, buff that scenario, it's a "Why would I make a fatter marauder" scenario.
It's great we finally see eye to eye. Terran does get the short end of the stick in terms of higher tier units. BC was nerfed transitioning into SC2, which was completely arbitrary and imbalanced the matchup towards staying mobile and low tech. The thor was eventually nerfed by the end of WoL.
Both ended up being significantly less mobile than their bio counterpart. Their obscene damage was supposed to be offset by their low mobility, but apparently Dustin missed that class on unit design 101, seeing how turned Red Alert into a one trick pony...
So this is the state of the Terran game, marine/marauder/ghost spam, WM spam, load-unloading and click click click click away to victory.
*sigh*
|
On September 17 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 17:30 Foxxan wrote:On September 17 2013 17:18 Decendos wrote:
ZvT is messed up designwise. MMMM is too strong while the T2 and T3 support units of T are either too weak (tank/thor/ghost) or take too long to transition to (BC/raven). imo it would be the best it MMMM was viable early and midgame and then Z gets to a comp that completely crushes it without support units. for example buff ultras a lot so they laugh at MMMM and buff tanks/thors, for example +dmg to armored or massive to help MMMM fight ultras etc. would be a lot more versatile, both sides would have to play a lot more strategic (do i get ultras/tanks out or do i try to kill him before, do i delay upgrade x or not etc.) + scouting would be more needed again. basically we would have TvZ being a strategy game and not a "who has the better mechanics wins" game with very little decisions to do.
stuff like making roach hydra or SHs more viable vs MMMM or buffing thors AA splash to help vs mutas etc. would also all help to get back different VIABLE styles for both sides etc. at DH seeing some Ts adding 1-2 thors later on was already nice to see but blizz has to change stuff to make it and other comps more viable for both sides. Hard counters are usually boring design. It will turn the game into cat and mouse. thats not true. Most units are hardcounters to certain other units anyways. that does not make most units boring. Not that i agree with descendos suggestion in particular, but he is right at the core. Compositions need to be counterable to the degree that players must switch up thwir unit mix. if they arent, thats when we get this form of "never transition" gameplay that makes everbody approach the game the same way.
Hardcounters would make sc2 just as awfull as that company of heroes game, YOU NEED TO RUSH AT AS PE or else you insta die. Or the opposition just spamms more infantry. Softcounters are way better.
|
Increasing tank damage isn't going to fix it in TvZ, Zergs have 3 hard counters to it now -vipers, swarm hosts and brood lords. Unless the unit is fundamentally changed (ie no friendly fire, faster siege/unsiege) then there is no reason to make a unit which becomes worthless whenever Zerg builds one of the three hard counters to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
