|
On September 17 2013 21:28 Lock0n wrote:
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.
First an update, it seems the sweet spot is 35 light +30 armored that allows it deal with ultras significantly better without influencing other compositions drastically such as Roaches or marauders.
You can all test it yourself soon on the custom balance test map.
As for vipers and SH and BL, they are mostly counters for mech or other slow units. If you have marines with speedvacs, it's a whole new game. I'd say it's worth further testing, don't you? If the Z can build a ton of ultras and vipers at the same time, I'd say the T is way too behind and ought to lose.
|
On September 17 2013 21:28 Lock0n wrote:
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.
Raven/viking counters all of the hard counters you listed.
The problem with that though is that getting hellbat/tank/viking/raven takes a ridiculously long time to build and forces mech terrans into really passive games.
|
On September 17 2013 20:26 NarutO wrote:
blah
Leaving aside for a second your history of faking statistics, preciously few people will care about third rated protoss beating third rated terrans in early or qualifier round, if the last day of big tournaments either consists of only Terrans winning or even nicer, only Terrans playing.
It's pretty funny seeing people fight tooth and claw with cherry-picked statistics and biased pseudo-arguments for 'their' race when the whole game is sinking fast. I'm sure you'd have had a pretty strong opinion on which music to play on the Titanic as well.
What Blizzards should do is poll - and discuss with - Masters league pure random players (people who played nothing but random for at least three season) what their impression is when watching pro games. That should at least cut out all the biased crap we read here and give some pointers to the balancing team. And at the moment Bowder and Kim look like they need help pretty badly.
|
On September 17 2013 21:28 Lock0n wrote:
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.
yea as if zerg can just go for viper swarm hosts and broodlords and you are going for pure tanks?
|
On September 17 2013 21:55 Aiobhill wrote:Leaving aside for a second your history of faking statistics, preciously few people will care about third rated protoss beating third rated terrans in early or qualifier round, if the last day of big tournaments either consists of only Terrans winning or even nicer, only Terrans playing. It's pretty funny seeing people fight tooth and claw with cherry-picked statistics and biased pseudo-arguments for 'their' race when the whole game is sinking fast. I'm sure you'd have had a pretty strong opinion on which music to play on the Titanic as well. What Blizzards should do is poll - and discuss with - Masters league pure random players (people who played nothing but random for at least three season) what their impression is when watching pro games. That should at least cut out all the biased crap we read here and give some pointers to the balancing team. And at the moment Bowder and Kim look like they need help pretty badly.
Besides not faking statistics previously but simply making a mistake I dare say those 3rd rate Terrans and Protoss are superior to even non Korean elite by a large margin. That you wrote it the way you did simply shows you have not looked into who took part in the qualifier but keep trying to discredit viable statisics. It simply was a write up of all Korean games since 1st september or can you point out games within the Korean scene I missed? Included WCS, GSTL and IEM NY
And to bitch right back: First TvT final in a year. Imbalanced as fuck right
|
On September 17 2013 21:39 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 21:28 Lock0n wrote:
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. Raven/viking counters all of the hard counters you listed. The problem with that though is that getting hellbat/tank/viking/raven takes a ridiculously long time to build and forces mech terrans into really passive games.
Yes, but a damage buff also means that tanks are more efficient, so you need less tanks for the same task, so you can get those things up faster and/or pressure more with the increased efficiency, so those scenarios were you absolutly need massive airfleets aren't as likely.
|
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in?
|
I think I actually came up with a pretty decent idea for widow mines right now. What if after they shoot their missile (until it unburrows and reburrows) it loses it's cloaked status (lorewise it overheats or powersurges until it recharges). So this way it still holds the same initial burst potential but makes zerg players have less shit to apm and invest into by bringing overseers and their lack of detection in general.
This also creates another skillset and challenge for terrans to let them blast and reposition them and be more strategic and cautious with them with them (even just burrow/unburrow where they stand).
So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran.
The mines could display an animation or buff that signals when they are revealed (powered down) and need to be reburrowed.
If this seems too much of a nerf, an alternative would just be that the mines are revealed until they self reload or are repositioned. So that way lower skilled players still don't have all the extra tasking to do when using mines if they just leave them planted.
|
On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in?
Which is why I recommend a compromise where there is a massive jump in damage for every vehicle weapons upgrade earned for the siege tank. This gives the siege tank a chance at the starting line up again after 20 min.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in?
You would not be all that aggressive though, since siege tank openers sacrifice map presence most of time.
|
On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran.
Looking how Terran overperforms at the highest tournament level and underperforms on ladder, it's pretty safe to say that this is the exact opposite of what SC2 needs.
From a balance (not entertainment) perspective it makes sense to either want terran simpler or the other races more difficult and stronger.
|
On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in?
Terrans can already do that. They don't do it a lot because:
- tanks are more expensive than mines, which means you have to cut/delay something else
- the rax+techlab factory+reactor setup has to be swapped, therefore stim has to be delayed
- tanks, though great against such ground allins are bad against aggressive mutalisk openings
It's true that it would become safer, but it also comes with certain drawbacks and are still not a freewin against those allins.
On September 18 2013 00:55 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? You would not be all that aggressive though, since siege tank openers sacrifice map presence most of time.
that's not true, tanks are added after the standard hellions are out. You have exactly as much mappresence.
On September 18 2013 00:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Which is why I recommend a compromise where there is a massive jump in damage for every vehicle weapons upgrade earned for the siege tank. This gives the siege tank a chance at the starting line up again after 20 min.
Upgrades are standardized. Though the idea is interesting, it's meanless to discuss it because it's not going to happen. The closest thing to that would be some form of armory-requiring damage upgrade or something along those lines.
On September 18 2013 00:55 Aiobhill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran. Looking how Terran overperforms at the highest tournament level and underperforms on ladder, it's pretty safe to say that this is the exact opposite of what SC2 needs. From a balance (not entertainment) perspective it makes sense to either want terran simpler or the other races more difficult and stronger.
why would I want to make the game simpler, or make balanced races stronger? The first idea goes against our idea of a skillintense game, the second one just imbalances the game in favor of the buffed races.
|
On September 18 2013 01:08 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Terrans can already do that. They don't do it a lot because: - tanks are more expensive than mines, which means you have to cut/delay something else - the rax+techlab factory+reactor setup has to be swapped, therefore stim has to be delayed - tanks, though great against such ground allins are bad against aggressive mutalisk openings It's true that it would become safer, but it also comes with certain drawbacks and are still not a freewin against those allins. Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? You would not be all that aggressive though, since siege tank openers sacrifice map presence most of time. that's not true, tanks are added after the standard hellions are out. You have exactly as much mappresence. Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Which is why I recommend a compromise where there is a massive jump in damage for every vehicle weapons upgrade earned for the siege tank. This gives the siege tank a chance at the starting line up again after 20 min. Upgrades are standardized. Though the idea is interesting, it's meanless to discuss it because it's not going to happen. The closest thing to that would be some form of armory-requiring damage upgrade or something along those lines. Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 00:55 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran. Looking how Terran overperforms at the highest tournament level and underperforms on ladder, it's pretty safe to say that this is the exact opposite of what SC2 needs. From a balance (not entertainment) perspective it makes sense to either want terran simpler or the other races more difficult and stronger. why would I want to make the game simpler, or make balanced races stronger? The first idea goes against our idea of a skillintense game, the second one just imbalances the game in favor of the buffed races.
Aligulac has 5 T in top 10, including 1, 2, 3.
WCS Standings have 6 T in top 10, including 1, 3, 4, 5.
TLPD has 7 T in top 10, including 1, 2.
That's a godawful unlikely distribution if we start from your assumption of 'balanced races'.
|
What if we increased the tank's range slightly? They'd be generally more useful against every unit, but would still take the same number of shots to kill everything. You could also spread them out better vs Vipers' blinding cloud while still allowing them to cover each other. They could also be used to siege Protoss Nexii again, even with photon overcharge (I hear a lot of complaints about Protoss being untouchable in the early game).
We could increase the minimum range as well to serve as a counter balance if it proved necessary. We could even increase the minimum range drastically if it created a fun dynamic. Maybe increase the max range by 1, while increasing the minimum range by 2 or 3, with the aim of creating a unit that is more useful tactically, but which has an obvious weakness that can be exploited by the opponent.
|
On September 18 2013 01:46 Aiobhill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 01:08 Big J wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Terrans can already do that. They don't do it a lot because: - tanks are more expensive than mines, which means you have to cut/delay something else - the rax+techlab factory+reactor setup has to be swapped, therefore stim has to be delayed - tanks, though great against such ground allins are bad against aggressive mutalisk openings It's true that it would become safer, but it also comes with certain drawbacks and are still not a freewin against those allins. On September 18 2013 00:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? You would not be all that aggressive though, since siege tank openers sacrifice map presence most of time. that's not true, tanks are added after the standard hellions are out. You have exactly as much mappresence. On September 18 2013 00:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Which is why I recommend a compromise where there is a massive jump in damage for every vehicle weapons upgrade earned for the siege tank. This gives the siege tank a chance at the starting line up again after 20 min. Upgrades are standardized. Though the idea is interesting, it's meanless to discuss it because it's not going to happen. The closest thing to that would be some form of armory-requiring damage upgrade or something along those lines. On September 18 2013 00:55 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran. Looking how Terran overperforms at the highest tournament level and underperforms on ladder, it's pretty safe to say that this is the exact opposite of what SC2 needs. From a balance (not entertainment) perspective it makes sense to either want terran simpler or the other races more difficult and stronger. why would I want to make the game simpler, or make balanced races stronger? The first idea goes against our idea of a skillintense game, the second one just imbalances the game in favor of the buffed races. Aligulac has 5 T in top 10, including 1, 2, 3. WCS Standings have 6 T in top 10, including 1, 3, 4, 5. TLPD has 7 T in top 10, including 1, 2. That's a godawful unlikely distribution if we start from your assumption of 'balanced races'.
Hey man, instead of calling me out and telling me I do fake statistics and post statistics of a third rate tournament, what about you answer to my reply :-)? Did you suddenly realize nearly every name-pro took part and the qualifier in itself was as stacked as can be? Do you realize the statistics are not what you want them to be? 
|
balance should be seen considering all matchups, not a single matchup.
Terran is more solid in his three matchups, that the reason the terrans win more at the highest level.
|
On September 18 2013 02:03 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 01:46 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 01:08 Big J wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Terrans can already do that. They don't do it a lot because: - tanks are more expensive than mines, which means you have to cut/delay something else - the rax+techlab factory+reactor setup has to be swapped, therefore stim has to be delayed - tanks, though great against such ground allins are bad against aggressive mutalisk openings It's true that it would become safer, but it also comes with certain drawbacks and are still not a freewin against those allins. On September 18 2013 00:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? You would not be all that aggressive though, since siege tank openers sacrifice map presence most of time. that's not true, tanks are added after the standard hellions are out. You have exactly as much mappresence. On September 18 2013 00:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Which is why I recommend a compromise where there is a massive jump in damage for every vehicle weapons upgrade earned for the siege tank. This gives the siege tank a chance at the starting line up again after 20 min. Upgrades are standardized. Though the idea is interesting, it's meanless to discuss it because it's not going to happen. The closest thing to that would be some form of armory-requiring damage upgrade or something along those lines. On September 18 2013 00:55 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran. Looking how Terran overperforms at the highest tournament level and underperforms on ladder, it's pretty safe to say that this is the exact opposite of what SC2 needs. From a balance (not entertainment) perspective it makes sense to either want terran simpler or the other races more difficult and stronger. why would I want to make the game simpler, or make balanced races stronger? The first idea goes against our idea of a skillintense game, the second one just imbalances the game in favor of the buffed races. Aligulac has 5 T in top 10, including 1, 2, 3. WCS Standings have 6 T in top 10, including 1, 3, 4, 5. TLPD has 7 T in top 10, including 1, 2. That's a godawful unlikely distribution if we start from your assumption of 'balanced races'. Hey man, instead of calling me out and telling me I do fake statistics and post statistics of a third rate tournament, what about you answer to my reply :-)? Did you suddenly realize nearly every name-pro took part and the qualifier in itself was as stacked as can be? Do you realize the statistics are not what you want them to be?
He has fair point. Everyone can provide 'convenient' statstics. Thats why I prefer if people kept it out of here.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 18 2013 03:20 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:03 NarutO wrote:On September 18 2013 01:46 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 01:08 Big J wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Terrans can already do that. They don't do it a lot because: - tanks are more expensive than mines, which means you have to cut/delay something else - the rax+techlab factory+reactor setup has to be swapped, therefore stim has to be delayed - tanks, though great against such ground allins are bad against aggressive mutalisk openings It's true that it would become safer, but it also comes with certain drawbacks and are still not a freewin against those allins. On September 18 2013 00:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? You would not be all that aggressive though, since siege tank openers sacrifice map presence most of time. that's not true, tanks are added after the standard hellions are out. You have exactly as much mappresence. On September 18 2013 00:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Which is why I recommend a compromise where there is a massive jump in damage for every vehicle weapons upgrade earned for the siege tank. This gives the siege tank a chance at the starting line up again after 20 min. Upgrades are standardized. Though the idea is interesting, it's meanless to discuss it because it's not going to happen. The closest thing to that would be some form of armory-requiring damage upgrade or something along those lines. On September 18 2013 00:55 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran. Looking how Terran overperforms at the highest tournament level and underperforms on ladder, it's pretty safe to say that this is the exact opposite of what SC2 needs. From a balance (not entertainment) perspective it makes sense to either want terran simpler or the other races more difficult and stronger. why would I want to make the game simpler, or make balanced races stronger? The first idea goes against our idea of a skillintense game, the second one just imbalances the game in favor of the buffed races. Aligulac has 5 T in top 10, including 1, 2, 3. WCS Standings have 6 T in top 10, including 1, 3, 4, 5. TLPD has 7 T in top 10, including 1, 2. That's a godawful unlikely distribution if we start from your assumption of 'balanced races'. Hey man, instead of calling me out and telling me I do fake statistics and post statistics of a third rate tournament, what about you answer to my reply :-)? Did you suddenly realize nearly every name-pro took part and the qualifier in itself was as stacked as can be? Do you realize the statistics are not what you want them to be? He has fair point. Everyone can provide 'convenient' statstics. Thats why I prefer if people kept it out of here.
Except that NarutO provided winrates aka more relevant information, as TLPD is long ago unreliable and Aligulac and WCS prioritize consistency
|
On September 18 2013 03:20 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:03 NarutO wrote:On September 18 2013 01:46 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 01:08 Big J wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Terrans can already do that. They don't do it a lot because: - tanks are more expensive than mines, which means you have to cut/delay something else - the rax+techlab factory+reactor setup has to be swapped, therefore stim has to be delayed - tanks, though great against such ground allins are bad against aggressive mutalisk openings It's true that it would become safer, but it also comes with certain drawbacks and are still not a freewin against those allins. On September 18 2013 00:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? You would not be all that aggressive though, since siege tank openers sacrifice map presence most of time. that's not true, tanks are added after the standard hellions are out. You have exactly as much mappresence. On September 18 2013 00:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Which is why I recommend a compromise where there is a massive jump in damage for every vehicle weapons upgrade earned for the siege tank. This gives the siege tank a chance at the starting line up again after 20 min. Upgrades are standardized. Though the idea is interesting, it's meanless to discuss it because it's not going to happen. The closest thing to that would be some form of armory-requiring damage upgrade or something along those lines. On September 18 2013 00:55 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran. Looking how Terran overperforms at the highest tournament level and underperforms on ladder, it's pretty safe to say that this is the exact opposite of what SC2 needs. From a balance (not entertainment) perspective it makes sense to either want terran simpler or the other races more difficult and stronger. why would I want to make the game simpler, or make balanced races stronger? The first idea goes against our idea of a skillintense game, the second one just imbalances the game in favor of the buffed races. Aligulac has 5 T in top 10, including 1, 2, 3. WCS Standings have 6 T in top 10, including 1, 3, 4, 5. TLPD has 7 T in top 10, including 1, 2. That's a godawful unlikely distribution if we start from your assumption of 'balanced races'. Hey man, instead of calling me out and telling me I do fake statistics and post statistics of a third rate tournament, what about you answer to my reply :-)? Did you suddenly realize nearly every name-pro took part and the qualifier in itself was as stacked as can be? Do you realize the statistics are not what you want them to be? He has fair point. Everyone can provide 'convenient' statstics. Thats why I prefer if people kept it out of here.
How are those statistics/winrates convenient? Its simply all Korean games (GSTL, WCS Season 3, GSTL, IEM Korea Qualifier) collected that were played since 1st September. I even did split the WCG stats from it, because it was before September. Its simple data that potentially can hint towards a trend, yet people complain and say I would fake those stats.
Everyone can go and look it up themselves, truth is, most people are too lazy to make that effort.
|
On September 17 2013 12:05 usethis2 wrote:
Make widow mines more visible. This is really important, IMO. Also make their attack animation more visible. I don't know how, but that's your job, Blizzard. It is impossible to see mines, let alone which mine hit what/where. I know some terran players manually target their mines, but as of now no one really can tell such beauty, which makes everything looks more random than they already are.
Really dislike the way they try to "balance" things in slimy ways. (see also: how ghosts blend in a marine/marauder army vs. fat and striped, impossible-to-miss infestors in a Z army)
That's on you.
Understand the widow-mine AI targets the closest unit. When you see a widow-mine shot ignore the closer target and choose a better one - e.g.. away from Terran's own bio units, or focusing banelings instead of that single ling, you have to know that the Terran was target firing.
Not much different that knowing when players manually target their siege tanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
