|
On April 28 2014 19:12 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 18:54 Big J wrote:I want to respond to the mapportion of your post, at least for TvZ: On April 28 2014 17:56 Glorfindel! wrote:
Personally I feel there are a couple of reasons for the lack of Terran success as of late.
1. The maps are not very good for Terran On April 28 2014 17:56 Glorfindel! wrote:
1.2 - The size and defensive problems
Many of the new maps have an extreme rush distance compared to the old days of Starcraft when Terran had the glory days.
Compare the maps today to maps like Entombed Valley, Ohana and Antiga Shipyard. All of those maps had smaller rush distances and the bases were overall closer to eachother than the new ones are today.
Many of the maps in todays maps pool does not allow Terran to take a fifth and defend it as easy as it was before. Also due to the higher map size there is no natural flow in Terrans attacks paths that allows them to rally to a defensive position and attack from there without to much fear of being harassed. Bel'Shir Vestige was a great map for Terran to rally to the fourth and putting pressure on Zergs fourth just around the corner.
Today if Terran want to pressure Zergs fourth it is necessary to go far out on creep and the way back home to defend vs runbys and Mutalisk are almost infinitive.
1.3 The amount of bases
Many of the maps in the current map pool has so many bases. Frost for an example allows for both Protoss and Zerg to expand both four and five times in the long macro games. One of the strenghts of Terran when Terrans was at is peak was denying the last "hard" base on the map, commonly a forth or a fifth. Today the fourth and fifth base are quite easily secured and the hard bases to secure becomes base sixth and seven.
This is something that does not benefit Terrans since Terran has extreme problems defending bases lategame due to its lack of mobility. A Zealot warp-in deals with bases, HT-drops, Zerglings with adrenal glance, Ultras, Mutalisks, you name it. All of them have in common they are great in dealing damage. Terrans way is dropships which can deal damage in similar ways. However those are often a one way journey. If you drop, you know Mutalisk will clean them up in the late game. They might be killed even before. Protoss can warp in instantly lategame to defend the drops. Terran does not have this kind of mobility. If you are out of position, the Mutas WILL kill the base. The Zealots will destroy your main before back up has arrived.
The best way for Terran to secure bases it to constantly be aggresive, which is not possible throughout a long maro game.
If we look at the map stats from TLPD, smaller maps are not necessarily good for Terran. Habitation Station is one of the best Zerg maps around currently. Alterzim is the best Terran map in the current mappool. Merry-Go-Round has been called out as a great Terran map by Demuslim and Artosis during DH. Outboxer in Proleague looks to be quite good for Terran, despite being a quite big 2player map. I fully agree with your position on how many bases a Terran can take though, I believe that this is a key issue. Terran needs the (later) bases very close to the bases they already have and need them very defendable, e.g. with choke points. Frost, Habitation Station are examples for maps where it is already hard to secure a 4th and 5th bases can only be taken when you are already winning. I think moreso than mapsizes, there are certain expansion layouts that are better or worse for Terran. And some of the maps are simply worse for bio or mech. But at the end of the day, I think this comes more down to how well Zerg can deny bases these days with mutaclouds. 2-3turrets do nothing in the lategame, 5turrets means the zerg has to choose the right angle to kill them - but still can do it, assuming there is no immidiate threat of a counterattack or of units that are close by. You need ridiculous amounts of turrets per base to deter mutalisk "harassment". Can you post where you got your map stats from?
If we look at the map stats from TLPD 
The two maps for which I talked about winrates:
Habitation Station: TvZ: 39-48 (44.8%); last two months: 16-20 (44.4%)
Alterzim: TvZ: 23-12 (65.7%); last two months: 11-4 (73.3%)
|
When is it considered "coin flip" and when is it considered "correct desition making"? What is the difference for you?
I mean, if we add even more units and strategies, it would be insanely hard to balance the game, so that there are no build order losses.
Once your build order was wrong, the decision making would be somehow limited.
It is not the problem right now, but if Blizzard adds let's say 2 more units for each race, such BO losses (coin flip) may happen.
|
On April 28 2014 19:39 TW wrote:Show nested quote +When is it considered "coin flip" and when is it considered "correct desition making"? What is the difference for you? I mean, if we add even more units and strategies, it would be insanely hard to balance the game, so that there are no build order losses. Once your build order was wrong, the decision making would be somehow limited. It is not the problem right now, but if Blizzard adds let's say 2 more units for each race, such BO losses (coin flip) may happen.
main problem is: "plenty strategies at early - few strategies at lategame". It should be exaclty the opposite.
|
On April 28 2014 12:05 Hider wrote:
Terran has to take risks (?) - You realize Hellion/reaper is basically risk-free in the sense that you should never get costineffective trades off as long as your control is good?
?? Of course there is risk involved with Reapers/Hellions. Those units are your map control tools; if you lose them to some ling surround you're toast because you can't land your third before forever against hords of lings, or you can even straight up die to any kind of 3-bases delayed bane bust. With Reapers/Hellions you also have to move out before your wall is complete, which makes you vulnerable to lings counter-raids in your natural; and even if you stay home with them, it's still a risk because it means you might not see what's coming on the map! See for instance Bogus vs Life on Overgrowth yesterday at the Dreamhack for the two last points. There's more than "I lost 3 Hellions and killed 12 lings, that's 300 minerals for both sides so it's OK".
If anything, terran feels like the race where your most in control of your destiny which makes it feel less risky than the other races.
What? If Terran is safer than the other races then I really wonder why I witness so often Terrans dying to random stuff like an Oracle, 2 DTs, any kind of Protoss all-in or Roaches timing? Yes you usually have the initiative with bio play in midgame but it doesn't mean there are less risks involved; actually it's probably the opposite since bio play has to achieve certain goals so it doesn't get stomped later, and for that you're often forced to try risky stuff (e. g. doomdrops vs Protoss, walking on creep vs Zerg, etc.).
And no, terran do not have to do economic damage in any matchup. Your main priority with hellion and reapers isn't actually do kill workers.
The damage does not necessarily have to be economic, but you better slow down the development of the other races (and even in bio vs mech scenarii you don't particularly want the mech player to take his fourth and tech Ravens uncontested, even if in the absolute you have the same lategame tools) or terrible things will happen as you move towards lategame.
|
?? Of course there is risk involved with Reapers/Hellions. Those units are your map control tools; if you lose them to some ling surround you're toast because you can't land your third before forever against hords of lings, or you can even straight up die to any kind of 3-bases delayed bane bust. With Reapers/Hellions you also have to move out before your wall is complete, which makes you vulnerable to lings counter-raids in your natural; and even if you stay home with them, it's still a risk because it means you might not see what's coming on the map! See for instance Bogus vs Life on Overgrowth yesterday at the Dreamhack for the two last points. There's more than "I lost 3 Hellions and killed 12 lings, that's 300 minerals for both sides so it's OK".
So let's define risk in this context as something that isn't related to your own unit control. In this case, I disagree that Hellion/reaper is a (particularly) risky opening. Your vulnerability to counterattacks depends on the way you control your units. You may notice that alot of players are being less aggressive with rallying Hellions, but instead choose to clear/scout nearby areas with the Hellions before they move out. So my point here is that the terran is still in control of the risk he want to expose him self too. He can always escape if he reacts in time, and he can always force the zerg to invest in defenses/and or Lings which slows downs his economy. So in that way, it's IMO a lot more guaranteed damage than something that is riskbased/gambling.
If you reread Pure.Wasted's point, I think you realize that most likely he thinks Hellion/Reaper needs to get inside main bases and kill drones and that he thereby completley relies upon the opponent not having the proper defense, which is just nonsense. The thing about Hellion/reaper is that its an extremley solid opening with no hardcounter.
What? If Terran is safer than the other races then I really wonder why I witness so often Terrans dying to random stuff like an Oracle, 2 DTs, any kind of Protoss all-in or Roaches timing? Yes you usually have the initiative with bio play in midgame but it doesn't mean there are less risks involved; actually it's probably the opposite since bio play has to achieve certain goals so it doesn't get stomped later, and for that you're often forced to try risky stuff (e. g. doomdrops vs Protoss, walking on creep vs Zerg, etc.).
I don't disagree with this part. But that's not what pure.wasted was arguing. In the discussion of how hard a race is (mechanically), I feel that we cannot just look at battle micro since terran (once infastructure is set up) has the easiest macro in my experience.
|
On April 28 2014 18:54 Big J wrote:
If we look at the map stats from TLPD, smaller maps are not necessarily good for Terran.
Habitation Station is one of the best Zerg maps around currently.
Alterzim is the best Terran map in the current mappool.
Merry-Go-Round has been called out as a great Terran map by Demuslim and Artosis during DH.
Outboxer in Proleague looks to be quite good for Terran, despite being a quite big 2player map.
I fully agree with your position on how many bases a Terran can take though, I believe that this is a key issue. Terran needs the (later) bases very close to the bases they already have and need them very defendable, e.g. with choke points.
Frost, Habitation Station are examples for maps where it is already hard to secure a 4th and 5th bases can only be taken when you are already winning.
I think moreso than mapsizes, there are certain expansion layouts that are better or worse for Terran. And some of the maps are simply worse for bio or mech.
But at the end of the day, I think this comes more down to how well Zerg can deny bases these days with mutaclouds. 2-3turrets do nothing in the lategame, 5turrets means the zerg has to choose the right angle to kill them - but still can do it, assuming there is no immidiate threat of a counterattack or of units that are close by. You need ridiculous amounts of turrets per base to deter mutalisk "harassment".
The size of the map is a double-edged sword. Small maps favor whichever side has the advantage in the game; if it's Terran rallying to press on or deal the killing blow is easier, but if Zerg has the upper hand after some engagement he can also quickly overrun the Terran with his surge of production post-fight (e. g. what happened in the last game of Bogus vs Life is even worse on a map like Polar Night). Huge maps like cross Alterzim don't really allow Terran midgame pressure but at least if you lose a fight near Zerg's bases or at the middle of the map, you have better chances at holding the counter-attack; actually Zerg may not even go for it.
Yeah, the fifth layout is extremely impractical on Frost. The fact you have to go through a bridge makes securing the fifth very annoying; basically impossible if you're behind at this point in the game or if Zerg has 30 mutas. On the opposite side, a map like Habitation Station allows 6v6 bases scenarii way more comfortably.
|
|
|
Does anybody know if Blizzard has recently given an explanation/opinion on Terran performance (or the lack thereoff) or are they continuing their kneejerk way of balancing Terran..?
I'm sick of ZvZvPvPvZvPvZvPvPvPvZvTvPvZvZ etc.
|
On April 28 2014 23:39 SC2Toastie wrote:
Does anybody know if Blizzard has recently given an explanation/opinion on Terran performance (or the lack thereoff) or are they continuing their kneejerk way of balancing Terran..?
I'm sick of ZvZvPvPvZvPvZvPvPvPvZvTvPvZvZ etc.
Win/rates are 50/50 on the ladder, so David Kim thinks the game is balanced.
|
On April 28 2014 23:41 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 23:39 SC2Toastie wrote:
Does anybody know if Blizzard has recently given an explanation/opinion on Terran performance (or the lack thereoff) or are they continuing their kneejerk way of balancing Terran..?
I'm sick of ZvZvPvPvZvPvZvPvPvPvZvTvPvZvZ etc. Win/rates are 50/50 on the ladder, so David Kim thinks the game is balanced.
And trolling never made anything better. Just say either: no, don't know, don't care, yes.
|
Northern Ireland25076 Posts
Trolling or not it's not that far off what emanates from Blizzard man.
|
On April 28 2014 23:43 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 23:41 Hider wrote:On April 28 2014 23:39 SC2Toastie wrote:
Does anybody know if Blizzard has recently given an explanation/opinion on Terran performance (or the lack thereoff) or are they continuing their kneejerk way of balancing Terran..?
I'm sick of ZvZvPvPvZvPvZvPvPvPvZvTvPvZvZ etc. Win/rates are 50/50 on the ladder, so David Kim thinks the game is balanced. And trolling never made anything better. Just say either: no, don't know, don't care, yes.
That's actual not a troll. If you study David Kim's historical comments, that's literraly the way he thinks about the game (a flawed statistical metric). He determines balance based on the weighted average results of tournaments and the nonsense win/rates.
So unless tournmanet-results are absolutely terrible for terran, don't expect David Kim to think TvZ issues are real. Since terran still gets a semifinal here and there, I think it will be at least a couple of months before terran gets a TvZ buff. Further, the issues of fixing PvT early game were "easier" in the sense that nerfing Mothership Core vision + changing maps were "small fixes". But even those "small fixes" took forever to be implemented.
Now, look at TvZ. What type of small fix can you do there? Any type of Widow-Mine Buff would likely make them OP in TvP; and then he have too revert parts of the shieldbuff vs protoss. Historically, Blizzard isn't a fan of reverting changes. The only realistic small change they could make for terran is maybe a small agility buff to the Thor and cheaper upgrades for transformation between Hellions and Hellbats.
And no, I am pretty sure he has not commented about balance of the game (otherwise it would have been posted on TL).
|
On April 28 2014 23:39 SC2Toastie wrote:
Does anybody know if Blizzard has recently given an explanation/opinion on Terran performance (or the lack thereoff) or are they continuing their kneejerk way of balancing Terran..?
I'm sick of ZvZvPvPvZvPvZvPvPvPvZvTvPvZvZ etc.
Last message came from the 12th of March, afaik.
I think it's safe to say that our balance design team is satisfied enough.
There is no perfect with an ever-changing metagame and so many variables, so they can't/don't/won't ever reach "global satisfaction". There are always concerns to be addressed.
|
I know the comments he makes, but I also know a lot of forum knights are happy to devolve everything he says, ignore the intelligent comments and take it down to 'ladder 50/50 game balanced' when in fact, there is a 5 paragraph post explaining everything.
The fact he has given no comment does worry me a bit, It's past time.
On the other hand, Blizzard is notorious for repeatedly shafting Terran in the balancing policy, whatever way you look at it.
|
i think rather than keep bringing up there is balance issue in a matchup, you guys should see how blizzard patch the right ones.
from non stop 24/7 bio mine all maps no mech appearance at all
into now
bio mine
bio mech
mech
Blizzard knows how to patch things, they have messed up several times earlier but always get it right in some other way.
while mines are migrating from TvZ, it is increasing in usage for TvP, a matchup that is still very stale in unit composition.
I can see blizzard wanting to find a way to make bio -> bio mech into a more viable transition
right now:
mines don't benefit at all from mech upgrades but still terran starts to add in hellbats and thors in mid late game for transition which makes for very interesting and more dynamic games
right now thors are added because of mutas and also deal better against ultra transition but are only gotten in late mid game and are rough to transition to.
I think LotV will introduce one terran unit that benefits from mech upgrades and flow well with bio and zerg might have a stronger anti bio unit (soft-ish counter) that pushes terran to move away from staying pure bio 3/3 only in late game.
it's simple to boost win rate in matchups, just nerf and buffs.
it's hard to get the right buffs and nerfs with a vision
|
On April 28 2014 23:51 SC2Toastie wrote:
I know the comments he makes, but I also know a lot of forum knights are happy to devolve everything he says, ignore the intelligent comments and take it down to 'ladder 50/50 game balanced' when in fact, there is a 5 paragraph post explaining everything.
The fact he has given no comment does worry me a bit, It's past time.
On the other hand, Blizzard is notorious for repeatedly shafting Terran in the balancing policy, whatever way you look at it.
Early WoL they used to react very quickly to things deemed too much. Reaper speed, bunker rushes, snipe, etc... Every time they'd be derided for jumping the gun. So they don't anymore. People whined to them about that too.
So now they don't really care if people complain, responding to their whims won't stop the whining anyway.
|
On April 28 2014 19:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 19:12 Chaggi wrote:On April 28 2014 18:54 Big J wrote:I want to respond to the mapportion of your post, at least for TvZ: On April 28 2014 17:56 Glorfindel! wrote:
Personally I feel there are a couple of reasons for the lack of Terran success as of late.
1. The maps are not very good for Terran On April 28 2014 17:56 Glorfindel! wrote:
1.2 - The size and defensive problems
Many of the new maps have an extreme rush distance compared to the old days of Starcraft when Terran had the glory days.
Compare the maps today to maps like Entombed Valley, Ohana and Antiga Shipyard. All of those maps had smaller rush distances and the bases were overall closer to eachother than the new ones are today.
Many of the maps in todays maps pool does not allow Terran to take a fifth and defend it as easy as it was before. Also due to the higher map size there is no natural flow in Terrans attacks paths that allows them to rally to a defensive position and attack from there without to much fear of being harassed. Bel'Shir Vestige was a great map for Terran to rally to the fourth and putting pressure on Zergs fourth just around the corner.
Today if Terran want to pressure Zergs fourth it is necessary to go far out on creep and the way back home to defend vs runbys and Mutalisk are almost infinitive.
1.3 The amount of bases
Many of the maps in the current map pool has so many bases. Frost for an example allows for both Protoss and Zerg to expand both four and five times in the long macro games. One of the strenghts of Terran when Terrans was at is peak was denying the last "hard" base on the map, commonly a forth or a fifth. Today the fourth and fifth base are quite easily secured and the hard bases to secure becomes base sixth and seven.
This is something that does not benefit Terrans since Terran has extreme problems defending bases lategame due to its lack of mobility. A Zealot warp-in deals with bases, HT-drops, Zerglings with adrenal glance, Ultras, Mutalisks, you name it. All of them have in common they are great in dealing damage. Terrans way is dropships which can deal damage in similar ways. However those are often a one way journey. If you drop, you know Mutalisk will clean them up in the late game. They might be killed even before. Protoss can warp in instantly lategame to defend the drops. Terran does not have this kind of mobility. If you are out of position, the Mutas WILL kill the base. The Zealots will destroy your main before back up has arrived.
The best way for Terran to secure bases it to constantly be aggresive, which is not possible throughout a long maro game.
If we look at the map stats from TLPD, smaller maps are not necessarily good for Terran. Habitation Station is one of the best Zerg maps around currently. Alterzim is the best Terran map in the current mappool. Merry-Go-Round has been called out as a great Terran map by Demuslim and Artosis during DH. Outboxer in Proleague looks to be quite good for Terran, despite being a quite big 2player map. I fully agree with your position on how many bases a Terran can take though, I believe that this is a key issue. Terran needs the (later) bases very close to the bases they already have and need them very defendable, e.g. with choke points. Frost, Habitation Station are examples for maps where it is already hard to secure a 4th and 5th bases can only be taken when you are already winning. I think moreso than mapsizes, there are certain expansion layouts that are better or worse for Terran. And some of the maps are simply worse for bio or mech. But at the end of the day, I think this comes more down to how well Zerg can deny bases these days with mutaclouds. 2-3turrets do nothing in the lategame, 5turrets means the zerg has to choose the right angle to kill them - but still can do it, assuming there is no immidiate threat of a counterattack or of units that are close by. You need ridiculous amounts of turrets per base to deter mutalisk "harassment". Can you post where you got your map stats from? The two maps for which I talked about winrates: Habitation Station: TvZ: 39-48 (44.8%); last two months: 16-20 (44.4%) Alterzim: TvZ: 23-12 (65.7%); last two months: 11-4 (73.3%)
Oh, that's what TLPD is. I don't ever look on the side bar lol
|
On April 29 2014 00:08 ETisME wrote:
i think rather than keep bringing up there is balance issue in a matchup, you guys should see how blizzard patch the right ones.
from non stop 24/7 bio mine all maps no mech appearance at all
into now
bio mine
bio mech
mech
Blizzard knows how to patch things, they have messed up several times earlier but always get it right in some other way.
while mines are migrating from TvZ, it is increasing in usage for TvP, a matchup that is still very stale in unit composition.
I can see blizzard wanting to find a way to make bio -> bio mech into a more viable transition
right now:
mines don't benefit at all from mech upgrades but still terran starts to add in hellbats and thors in mid late game for transition which makes for very interesting and more dynamic games
right now thors are added because of mutas and also deal better against ultra transition but are only gotten in late mid game and are rough to transition to.
I think LotV will introduce one terran unit that benefits from mech upgrades and flow well with bio and zerg might have a stronger anti bio unit (soft-ish counter) that pushes terran to move away from staying pure bio 3/3 only in late game.
it's simple to boost win rate in matchups, just nerf and buffs.
it's hard to get the right buffs and nerfs with a vision
Blizzard may have a better plan, but screwing every Terran pro over for month after month sounds like a pretty nasty plan.
TvZ shifted from biomine to biomine/biomech/mech/bio, but none of those four options are effective. Terrans drop like flies against inferior opponents.
Everybody knows the unit Terran needs to make Mech viable; it's the Siege Tank and the Goliath. The current Tank is laughably weak. The Thor is terrible in whatever role it tries to fill except making it so 30 mutalisk can't engage clumped (magic boxed, they trade evenly). Bio needs the Siege Tank or equivalent splash back as well.
Problems in the game currently;
1 Nobody wants to play mech because nobody wants to face Swarmhosts for 2 hours straight,
2 Mutalisk are unkillable, Terran has not a single tool that deals with Mutalisk except for lucky mine hits.
3 Maps grow larger, making Terrans most powerful aggessive tool, the parade push, weaker with every map rotation.
4 Mothership Core prevents every and all aggression Terran could press on early game, making it so Terran fears hundreds of Protoss all ins, and Protoss fears none.
5 Terran builds are so predictable, because there's so many 'things' that have to be build into a Terran build to make it viable (you NEED hellions and early scouting and an early response to Roaches and a fast 2nd CC and either a kill timing OR a fast 3rd CC to keep up with Zerg, you NEED to be able to defend against DT/Oracle, scout early with Reaper, have a fast 2nd CC, get fast medivacs, keep up on upgrades, get very fast stim to survive vs Protoss) while Protoss and Zerg builds can be a lot more versatile - there's nothing Terran can really do that is dangerous to them.
6 Terran CANNOT transition to lategame because every unit whose name does not start with an M is so specialized/pidgeonholed in what it does, that it becomes useless in larger battles.
So, sure, explain to me how, IN THE CURRENT STATE OF BALANCE, Blizzard shows 'vision' on balance... I don't see a lot of new possible options. I Just.don't.see.it, and I'd love it if somebody would open my eyes.
On April 29 2014 00:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 23:51 SC2Toastie wrote:
I know the comments he makes, but I also know a lot of forum knights are happy to devolve everything he says, ignore the intelligent comments and take it down to 'ladder 50/50 game balanced' when in fact, there is a 5 paragraph post explaining everything.
The fact he has given no comment does worry me a bit, It's past time.
On the other hand, Blizzard is notorious for repeatedly shafting Terran in the balancing policy, whatever way you look at it. Early WoL they used to react very quickly to things deemed too much. Reaper speed, bunker rushes, snipe, etc... Every time they'd be derided for jumping the gun. So they don't anymore. People whined to them about that too. So now they don't really care if people complain, responding to their whims won't stop the whining anyway.
I'm talking more about nerfing on Terran being fast and hard (Mine radius massive decrease, blueflame half damage, Snipe useless, WOL reaper useless, siege tank from 60 to 35(50) damage, hellbats, etcetera while whenever Terran is in trouble nothing happens. Broodlord infestor was never fixed and was problematic for months on end. The current era of Terran weakness is nearing half a years worth as well.
EDIT: Lastly, there is a reason we're seeing a lot more 11/11 cheeses at the moment. That reason is that most Protoss/Zerg players don't even scout early anymore, because they simply don't have to. Terrans are noticing they have pretty much the same (best lol :D?) chance to win with 11/11 as with a macro game.
|
Northern Ireland25076 Posts
I find it hard to disagree really with much of that, Blizzard have been applying plasters to fix issues instead of entering the operating theatre and doing something more radical.
|
On April 29 2014 00:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
I find it hard to disagree really with much of that, Blizzard have been applying plasters to fix issues instead of entering the operating theatre and doing something more radical.
Well, making a balance change is REALLY hard, because of the sheer amount of interactions between everything in this game. Making a good change is HARD! A plaster to fix an issue (Reapers are a problem? Lets nerf them beyond oblivion! Reapers are no longer a problem) is a much easier, less risky way of going with it.
Buffing a unit, whilst being the preferred way to go in my opinion (except for random speed buffs for DT/Oracle/Prism!!!!!!!!!!!) is also a lot more risky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
