|
On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, so tanks are in sufficiently low use that Blizzard could probably safely buff them without breaking everything (although it still might break TvT). That said, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that a Zerg approaching a marine/tank army was more interesting. The high range of the siege tank makes positioning and micro a great deal less important. For instance, if you want to protect your banelings from widow mines, you move them away from the mines and let them detonate on zerglings instead. But against tanks, you can't really do anything about it – there's no way to keep your banelings out of the 13 range, so the most you could do is split them. But unlike marine splits against banelings, you can't tell where the tank shots are going to hit, so you have to just keep all the banelings split up, rather than splitting away from strategic places. I would say the Zerg micro against MMMM is strictly more interesting and complex than that against marine/tank.
Here's the thing: I love siege tanks, and I'd really like them to get big buffs so they were a core army unit again. But I'm trying to come up with a reason why they'd be a better primary army unit to play with and watch than widow mines, and all I can come up with is because I like them. And I think that's just the nostalgia talking.
Tanks were fun because they were a big, expensive target that the Zerg could easily pick off if they ever lured the marine escort out of position. Abuse the Terran's lack of mobility to force the marines out of position, sweep in with mutalisks and take out a tank or two, then escape with zero losses. It felt elegant, and it provided the duel satisfaction of outsmarting the Terran player and dealing a significant blow that hurt. And if you manage to pick off enough tanks, you could be reasonably assured that your banelings would make short work of the remaining marine based army.
The action was easy to follow for the viewer too, because the tank is a highly visible unit, and its obvious when its marine escort was out of position.
Until Zerg thinks of a better way to pick off mines, they're left trying to fight back with the same tactics that they used against tanks: lure the marine escort away and try to pick off some of the mines. Except everything is harder and less satisfying now. The targets are invisible without detection, and they can fight back. Even if you manage to pick some off, they're so cheap that it often feels like less of an accomplishment. And even if you do manage to pick off a great number of mines, there's less of an assurance that the rest of your army will fare well because the mine is so volatile: those few remaining mines still have the chance to hit big.
The action is also hard to follow for the viewer. The mine is a small unit that is harder to keep track of. Also, since mines lack the vulnerabilities of tanks, it's less clear whether the Terran is getting caught out of position. Did Terran fail to escort his mines, or did he leave those mines behind on purpose, as a trap?
|
I really think the easiest way to "fix" widow mines is to make it more distinguishable. Creep tumors are an example that widow mines can mimic. Make them look as visible as creep tumors when detected, and make its target radius discolored when burrowed. Much easier to see them both for players and viewers. Balance problem will be solved as well. If the latter is a bit too much, the former should not be.
|
On September 18 2013 10:38 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 10:08 MattD wrote:On September 18 2013 09:58 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Well so this is just saying they need to have more diversified roles. Of course, overlap in roles isn't necessarily bad; if two units have very similar roles, often you only get one or the other instead of both. Siege tanks are better defensively or against ranged unit compositions (this is, for instance, why tanks are still dominant in TvT), while widow mines are better all-around units, and since they're more accessible if you could use either one for a task, you prefer the widow mine. I'm not sure what the changes you think this should cause; why shouldn't tanks be a more niche unit, while widow mines become dominant? you dont see widow mine vT because of the sheer dps of marines, let alone most terran units outranging them, plus free scans limit their burrowed effectiveness. when you look at the vZ matchup, widow mines are very effective because of the lack of detection, until going into mid-late game, when zerg has enough units to deal adequate dps themselves to destroy widow mines quickly, and to spam overseers to help with detection. vP, well, we all know that matchup is virtually unchanged from WoL. The problem in tvz isn't detection, its the fact its impossible to be cost efficient vs widow mines, and when terran has alot of supply and has 10-15 of them there is no way to set them off. You cant send units in because the marine marauder kills them too fast to set them off or they unburrow because of drilling claws. Killing a widow mine with 2 banelings is a win for the terran, surely that says something. Widow mines are way too fucking good when you run into them while chasing the MMM bioball, it's as simple as that. Fixed that for you. It isn't as Much as WM are too powerful, it's too powerful against a lesser muta/ling/bling player. The ladder Terran has learned (including myself) have learned the APM requirements for some builds used in progames were too damn high! There's nothing imbalanced when two highly skilled opponents use low health, high mobility units to fight each other, I'm sorry but it will always be faster finger first wins.
Actually, you're not addressing his points. He's making specific claims and your answer is completely generic, even abstracting away from the actual units.
|
On September 18 2013 11:18 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 10:38 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 10:08 MattD wrote:On September 18 2013 09:58 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Well so this is just saying they need to have more diversified roles. Of course, overlap in roles isn't necessarily bad; if two units have very similar roles, often you only get one or the other instead of both. Siege tanks are better defensively or against ranged unit compositions (this is, for instance, why tanks are still dominant in TvT), while widow mines are better all-around units, and since they're more accessible if you could use either one for a task, you prefer the widow mine. I'm not sure what the changes you think this should cause; why shouldn't tanks be a more niche unit, while widow mines become dominant? you dont see widow mine vT because of the sheer dps of marines, let alone most terran units outranging them, plus free scans limit their burrowed effectiveness. when you look at the vZ matchup, widow mines are very effective because of the lack of detection, until going into mid-late game, when zerg has enough units to deal adequate dps themselves to destroy widow mines quickly, and to spam overseers to help with detection. vP, well, we all know that matchup is virtually unchanged from WoL. The problem in tvz isn't detection, its the fact its impossible to be cost efficient vs widow mines, and when terran has alot of supply and has 10-15 of them there is no way to set them off. You cant send units in because the marine marauder kills them too fast to set them off or they unburrow because of drilling claws. Killing a widow mine with 2 banelings is a win for the terran, surely that says something. Widow mines are way too fucking good when you run into them while chasing the MMM bioball, it's as simple as that. Fixed that for you. It isn't as Much as WM are too powerful, it's too powerful against a lesser muta/ling/bling player. The ladder Terran has learned (including myself) have learned the APM requirements for some builds used in progames were too damn high! There's nothing imbalanced when two highly skilled opponents use low health, high mobility units to fight each other, I'm sorry but it will always be faster finger first wins. Actually, you're not addressing his points. He's making specific claims and your answer is completely generic, even abstracting away from the actual units.
There was nothing specific about his points either. And the point about killing widowmines with 2 banes? Banes are AOE unit, no duh they are not cost efficient against single unit.
2 banes killing a marine is also a win for the Terran, and that's not a problem.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On September 18 2013 10:38 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 10:08 MattD wrote:On September 18 2013 09:58 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Well so this is just saying they need to have more diversified roles. Of course, overlap in roles isn't necessarily bad; if two units have very similar roles, often you only get one or the other instead of both. Siege tanks are better defensively or against ranged unit compositions (this is, for instance, why tanks are still dominant in TvT), while widow mines are better all-around units, and since they're more accessible if you could use either one for a task, you prefer the widow mine. I'm not sure what the changes you think this should cause; why shouldn't tanks be a more niche unit, while widow mines become dominant? you dont see widow mine vT because of the sheer dps of marines, let alone most terran units outranging them, plus free scans limit their burrowed effectiveness. when you look at the vZ matchup, widow mines are very effective because of the lack of detection, until going into mid-late game, when zerg has enough units to deal adequate dps themselves to destroy widow mines quickly, and to spam overseers to help with detection. vP, well, we all know that matchup is virtually unchanged from WoL. The problem in tvz isn't detection, its the fact its impossible to be cost efficient vs widow mines, and when terran has alot of supply and has 10-15 of them there is no way to set them off. You cant send units in because the marine marauder kills them too fast to set them off or they unburrow because of drilling claws. Killing a widow mine with 2 banelings is a win for the terran, surely that says something. Widow mines are way too fucking good when you run into them while chasing the MMM bioball, it's as simple as that. Fixed that for you. It isn't as Much as WM are too powerful, it's too powerful against a lesser muta/ling/bling player. The ladder Terran has learned (including myself) have learned the APM requirements for some builds used in progames were too damn high! There's nothing imbalanced when two highly skilled opponents use low health, high mobility units to fight each other, I'm sorry but it will always be faster finger first wins.
We're not going through this discussion again.
|
On September 18 2013 11:39 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 10:38 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 10:08 MattD wrote:On September 18 2013 09:58 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Well so this is just saying they need to have more diversified roles. Of course, overlap in roles isn't necessarily bad; if two units have very similar roles, often you only get one or the other instead of both. Siege tanks are better defensively or against ranged unit compositions (this is, for instance, why tanks are still dominant in TvT), while widow mines are better all-around units, and since they're more accessible if you could use either one for a task, you prefer the widow mine. I'm not sure what the changes you think this should cause; why shouldn't tanks be a more niche unit, while widow mines become dominant? you dont see widow mine vT because of the sheer dps of marines, let alone most terran units outranging them, plus free scans limit their burrowed effectiveness. when you look at the vZ matchup, widow mines are very effective because of the lack of detection, until going into mid-late game, when zerg has enough units to deal adequate dps themselves to destroy widow mines quickly, and to spam overseers to help with detection. vP, well, we all know that matchup is virtually unchanged from WoL. The problem in tvz isn't detection, its the fact its impossible to be cost efficient vs widow mines, and when terran has alot of supply and has 10-15 of them there is no way to set them off. You cant send units in because the marine marauder kills them too fast to set them off or they unburrow because of drilling claws. Killing a widow mine with 2 banelings is a win for the terran, surely that says something. Widow mines are way too fucking good when you run into them while chasing the MMM bioball, it's as simple as that. Fixed that for you. It isn't as Much as WM are too powerful, it's too powerful against a lesser muta/ling/bling player. The ladder Terran has learned (including myself) have learned the APM requirements for some builds used in progames were too damn high! There's nothing imbalanced when two highly skilled opponents use low health, high mobility units to fight each other, I'm sorry but it will always be faster finger first wins. We're not going through this discussion again.
Except the point has to be made. People bringing ladder complaints into the balance thread is really derailing. Especially with idiotic points about the cost effectiveness of aoe unit against a single target.
|
Just on terran, mines don't need a nerf (or maybe they do need a slight nerf, not sure), tanks/mech needs a buff. Increase the movement speed of hellbats so they can engage the front line without being vaporized before they get there. Increase the cost if necessary. Reduce tanks to 100 gas, or bring back siege research but increase dmg and/or production speed. Tanks actually have a very short combat lifespan in general, they should treated as such by Blizzard
I would love to see Ravens used more but i don't possess the lateral thinking required to make them regularly useful
Thors should be removed from the game for LOTV. Useless giant turds they are. Replace them with the goliath and remove viking transformer ability. The only time we see thors is when the game is already lost and they come out as a desperado unit, or the game is already won and someone wants to a-move thors across the map to victory
|
On September 18 2013 11:36 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 11:18 Meff wrote:On September 18 2013 10:38 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 10:08 MattD wrote:On September 18 2013 09:58 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Well so this is just saying they need to have more diversified roles. Of course, overlap in roles isn't necessarily bad; if two units have very similar roles, often you only get one or the other instead of both. Siege tanks are better defensively or against ranged unit compositions (this is, for instance, why tanks are still dominant in TvT), while widow mines are better all-around units, and since they're more accessible if you could use either one for a task, you prefer the widow mine. I'm not sure what the changes you think this should cause; why shouldn't tanks be a more niche unit, while widow mines become dominant? you dont see widow mine vT because of the sheer dps of marines, let alone most terran units outranging them, plus free scans limit their burrowed effectiveness. when you look at the vZ matchup, widow mines are very effective because of the lack of detection, until going into mid-late game, when zerg has enough units to deal adequate dps themselves to destroy widow mines quickly, and to spam overseers to help with detection. vP, well, we all know that matchup is virtually unchanged from WoL. The problem in tvz isn't detection, its the fact its impossible to be cost efficient vs widow mines, and when terran has alot of supply and has 10-15 of them there is no way to set them off. You cant send units in because the marine marauder kills them too fast to set them off or they unburrow because of drilling claws. Killing a widow mine with 2 banelings is a win for the terran, surely that says something. Widow mines are way too fucking good when you run into them while chasing the MMM bioball, it's as simple as that. Fixed that for you. It isn't as Much as WM are too powerful, it's too powerful against a lesser muta/ling/bling player. The ladder Terran has learned (including myself) have learned the APM requirements for some builds used in progames were too damn high! There's nothing imbalanced when two highly skilled opponents use low health, high mobility units to fight each other, I'm sorry but it will always be faster finger first wins. Actually, you're not addressing his points. He's making specific claims and your answer is completely generic, even abstracting away from the actual units. There was nothing specific about his points either. And the point about killing widowmines with 2 banes? Banes are AOE unit, no duh they are not cost efficient against single unit. 2 banes killing a marine is also a win for the Terran, and that's not a problem.
I think MattD is referring to a situation where the Z absolutely has to fight or lose a base, such as when the T is attacking the Z 4th base. We see the fight progress the same way all the time: T plants 2 widowmines up front and the rest to the side and behind to prevent flanking. He stands 4-8 marine/marauder on top of the front mines while poking at the hatchery and the rest of the army further behind to not take splash damage if the Z charges in. What are the options for the Z? If sends in a few lings they die before setting off the mines. If he sends in a sizeable force to make sure the mines detonate, then the T just loses those few marines for a good chunk of the Z army. Then he moves 2 more mines to the front and a few more men to stand on top of them. Rinse and repeat.
|
On September 18 2013 03:34 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 03:20 saddaromma wrote: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.
I'd look into top 8 of each tournament if I want to talk about balance. The lower levels are shaky, especially when bo1, where people use some crazy allins and surprises.
- GSTL, nah.
- WCS Season 3 group stage - maybe. But I'd rather watch for top-8.
- IEM qualifier, nope.
Everyone knows protoss performs well on mid-pro level. E.g. EU. But you're not gonna nerf them since protoss will go extinct in Korea's highest level. Therefore mid-pro level is kinda irrelevant for balance discussion.
See what I did. I pulled off 'convenient' statistics.
And btw, what do you think, Is TLPD ranking worth for balance discussion on the right sidebar? I see 6 terrans top 10 and 3 terrans top 4. Does it matter?
|
What about changing the mine so that the upgrade to burrow quicker is instead a reduction in detonation delay?
Reason I say that is siege tank play in TvZ was interesting because of the urgency to attack while tanks were unsieged.
With mine play even if you catch a Terran out of position the mines burrow so fast that it is hard to make a Terran pay the same way you could when siege tanks were unsieged.
Instead make the upgrade so the mine shoots with less cool down and it will function better defensively and with drop harass but if big engagements Terran would actually be punished if caught. I just think the speed those things burrow is a huge part of what makes them so hard to deal with.
I also think changlings should either set off mines or detect. But that's another post.
|
On September 18 2013 11:36 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 11:18 Meff wrote:On September 18 2013 10:38 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 10:08 MattD wrote:On September 18 2013 09:58 a176 wrote:On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
Well so this is just saying they need to have more diversified roles. Of course, overlap in roles isn't necessarily bad; if two units have very similar roles, often you only get one or the other instead of both. Siege tanks are better defensively or against ranged unit compositions (this is, for instance, why tanks are still dominant in TvT), while widow mines are better all-around units, and since they're more accessible if you could use either one for a task, you prefer the widow mine. I'm not sure what the changes you think this should cause; why shouldn't tanks be a more niche unit, while widow mines become dominant? you dont see widow mine vT because of the sheer dps of marines, let alone most terran units outranging them, plus free scans limit their burrowed effectiveness. when you look at the vZ matchup, widow mines are very effective because of the lack of detection, until going into mid-late game, when zerg has enough units to deal adequate dps themselves to destroy widow mines quickly, and to spam overseers to help with detection. vP, well, we all know that matchup is virtually unchanged from WoL. The problem in tvz isn't detection, its the fact its impossible to be cost efficient vs widow mines, and when terran has alot of supply and has 10-15 of them there is no way to set them off. You cant send units in because the marine marauder kills them too fast to set them off or they unburrow because of drilling claws. Killing a widow mine with 2 banelings is a win for the terran, surely that says something. Widow mines are way too fucking good when you run into them while chasing the MMM bioball, it's as simple as that. Fixed that for you. It isn't as Much as WM are too powerful, it's too powerful against a lesser muta/ling/bling player. The ladder Terran has learned (including myself) have learned the APM requirements for some builds used in progames were too damn high! There's nothing imbalanced when two highly skilled opponents use low health, high mobility units to fight each other, I'm sorry but it will always be faster finger first wins. Actually, you're not addressing his points. He's making specific claims and your answer is completely generic, even abstracting away from the actual units. There was nothing specific about his points either. And the point about killing widowmines with 2 banes? Banes are AOE unit, no duh they are not cost efficient against single unit. 2 banes killing a marine is also a win for the Terran, and that's not a problem.
The point i was making is there is no way to get a cost efficient engagement when you're forced to fight, theres no more "zerg should figure it out either" as far as i can see this is basically the next 2 years of tvz.
|
On September 18 2013 12:18 FLuE wrote:
What about changing the mine so that the upgrade to burrow quicker is instead a reduction in detonation delay?
Reason I say that is siege tank play in TvZ was interesting because of the urgency to attack while tanks were unsieged.
With mine play even if you catch a Terran out of position the mines burrow so fast that it is hard to make a Terran pay the same way you could when siege tanks were unsieged.
Instead make the upgrade so the mine shoots with less cool down and it will function better defensively and with drop harass but if big engagements Terran would actually be punished if caught. I just think the speed those things burrow is a huge part of what makes them so hard to deal with.
I also think changlings should either set off mines or detect. But that's another post.
imo that will make this unit into urber unit...
Just make its attack non-spell so that:
-splash dmg will be like seige tank (100% in small area, 50& in bigger area)
-blind cloud can affect WM
It will kill less immortals but if blizzard fixes tank, it will be a reasonable change.
|
On September 18 2013 10:38 archwaykitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, so tanks are in sufficiently low use that Blizzard could probably safely buff them without breaking everything (although it still might break TvT). That said, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that a Zerg approaching a marine/tank army was more interesting. The high range of the siege tank makes positioning and micro a great deal less important. For instance, if you want to protect your banelings from widow mines, you move them away from the mines and let them detonate on zerglings instead. But against tanks, you can't really do anything about it – there's no way to keep your banelings out of the 13 range, so the most you could do is split them. But unlike marine splits against banelings, you can't tell where the tank shots are going to hit, so you have to just keep all the banelings split up, rather than splitting away from strategic places. I would say the Zerg micro against MMMM is strictly more interesting and complex than that against marine/tank.
Here's the thing: I love siege tanks, and I'd really like them to get big buffs so they were a core army unit again. But I'm trying to come up with a reason why they'd be a better primary army unit to play with and watch than widow mines, and all I can come up with is because I like them. And I think that's just the nostalgia talking. Tanks were fun because they were a big, expensive target that the Zerg could easily pick off if they ever lured the marine escort out of position. Abuse the Terran's lack of mobility to force the marines out of position, sweep in with mutalisks and take out a tank or two, then escape with zero losses. It felt elegant, and it provided the duel satisfaction of outsmarting the Terran player and dealing a significant blow that hurt. And if you manage to pick off enough tanks, you could be reasonably assured that your banelings would make short work of the remaining marine based army. The action was easy to follow for the viewer too, because the tank is a highly visible unit, and its obvious when its marine escort was out of position. Until Zerg thinks of a better way to pick off mines, they're left trying to fight back with the same tactics that they used against tanks: lure the marine escort away and try to pick off some of the mines. Except everything is harder and less satisfying now. The targets are invisible without detection, and they can fight back. Even if you manage to pick some off, they're so cheap that it often feels like less of an accomplishment. And even if you do manage to pick off a great number of mines, there's less of an assurance that the rest of your army will fare well because the mine is so volatile: those few remaining mines still have the chance to hit big. The action is also hard to follow for the viewer. The mine is a small unit that is harder to keep track of. Also, since mines lack the vulnerabilities of tanks, it's less clear whether the Terran is getting caught out of position. Did Terran fail to escort his mines, or did he leave those mines behind on purpose, as a trap?
Excellent post. Couldn't have said it any better.
|
On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank?
Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better.
Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor.
I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question.
|
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9973127981?page=1
So blizzard is releasing a balance patch note soon:
Address mech issue
Late game ZvT issues
Low possibly of mine being nerfed
No numbers and no details yet.
Hopefully the patch won't hit bio mine too hard and make mech more viable.
|
On September 18 2013 13:09 ETisME wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9973127981?page=1So blizzard is releasing a balance patch note soon: Address mech issue Late game ZvT issues Low possibly of mine being nerfed No numbers and no details yet. Hopefully the patch won't hit bio mine too hard and make mech more viable.
Awesome, they are going to nerf the mine for sure.
|
100 damage tanks. All your ground units belongs to me now.
|
On September 18 2013 13:37 YyapSsap wrote:
100 damage tanks. All your ground units belongs to me now.
bwhahaa. I hope so. That will be hilarious. That would make painfully obvious the key design problem with the race and consequently its matchups.
Wonder if they'll muck it up before their prize tournament.
|
On September 18 2013 13:37 YyapSsap wrote:
100 damage tanks. All your ground units belongs to me now.
with 5range and 40second cooldown 
|
On September 18 2013 12:07 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 03:34 NarutO wrote:On September 18 2013 03:20 saddaromma wrote: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. I'd look into top 8 of each tournament if I want to talk about balance. The lower levels are shaky, especially when bo1, where people use some crazy allins and surprises. - GSTL, nah. - WCS Season 3 group stage - maybe. But I'd rather watch for top-8. - IEM qualifier, nope. Everyone knows protoss performs well on mid-pro level. E.g. EU. But you're not gonna nerf them since protoss will go extinct in Korea's highest level. Therefore mid-pro level is kinda irrelevant for balance discussion. See what I did. I pulled off 'convenient' statistics. And btw, what do you think, Is TLPD ranking worth for balance discussion on the right sidebar? I see 6 terrans top 10 and 3 terrans top 4. Does it matter?
First of all, while I believe that this might be a good indicator (talking about top 8 etc) I feel its highly volatile. You can take into account that INnoVation played against elfi at Dreamhack. While elfi is no bad player, he is vastly inferior to INnoVation and I dare to say he wouldn't beat him twice out of 100 games. This is no indication of balance. Ofcourse the sample size in a top8 where one player is as superior as INnoVation to elfi is the minority, but based on the Ro8, it will also be a lot less games so the single games / series have major influence on the statistics.
Now to you trying to discredit me or trying to say I would put up convenient statistics. I took all Korean games (highest level) starting from 1st September. I did include all major tournament qualifiers and tournaments. It cannot be convenient to begin with, because I simply included all games.
GSTL:
You say no, trying to discredit the league because its best of 1. Truth is that while people may bring out cheese/allins in best of 1, they can also bring out cheese/allin in bo3. The chance of it working in a best of 1 is not more likely than in a bo3. The teamleague is the highest skill teamleague when proleague is not on and ofcourse has to be included in every balance statistic
IEM NY Qualifier.
The lineup is stacked. I broke it down to a guy in the German boards, where he was saying Dreamhack Groupstage 3 was more stacked. I explaind to him that the top finishers of Dreamhack (Finals, Semifinals, Quarterfinals, Ro16) all fell short either in Stage 1 already (Life) or Stage 2 even though they had an invite including TaeJa who went out in winnerbracket and loserbracket round 1 of Stage 2. Only INnoVation made it out to stage 3.
Korean qualifiers are known to be as hard as it gets and often times harder than the main tournament. Saying this has no right to be taking into consideration while saying the top 8 of dreamhack can, is wrong. The lineup in the Ro64 was already top notch and only filled with good players while in Groupstage 3 of Dreamhack there was still trash (if you want to talk about highest level)
WCS Korea:
Code B is already good enough to make non-Korean players shiver. Code A are often times potential champions or former champions and overall very good players. I don't know why you would try to discredit any of WCS Korea, as its known to be the hardest league in the world.
Thats my reason to include those, furthermore I did not exclude anything played in Korea. (if I did, please point it out as it was not on purpose). I was simply collection data for september and while you say its convenient, I say its complete. I didn't do it to balance whine but simply to point out current winrates that show Terrans are actually not doing that well vs Zerg and Protoss is currently doing worse than the previous month vs Terran (56 vs 58%). It merely suggests a trend and trying to discredit that is awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
