EPTDesignated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 997
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
CrayonSc2
United States267 Posts
| ||
|
Foreverkul
United States1649 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 04 2014 18:00 Foreverkul wrote: So we all hear about "Terran dead race" "Toss OP" but perhaps its that this seasons map pool has revealed that Terran have a gap in tech that is easily exploited? Zerg are fast, and faster on creep, and Protoss have death ball, recall, and overcharge. Terran is conditionally fast and conditionally defensive, both at the cost of another tech while its a natural extension for other races with little sacrifice for huge benefits. What could help Terran when it comes to bigger maps? a nerf to mutalisks | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27272 Posts
On June 04 2014 07:08 CrayonSc2 wrote: reguarding Z's anti-air. Do you think a curruptor change of curruption to reducing 20% damage of the unit is well help out compared to taking 20% more damage.IMO the problem with the anti-air is that it just dies to quickly to make it cost effective. A short duration buff that protects vs bonus damage vs armoured targets. Could cast to prevent Voids annihilating Corruptors perhaps?? Just throwing something out there because corruption really could do with some level of re-evaluation. | ||
|
FaultyReDD
25 Posts
I just feel that with overcharge/forcefields + queens/spines/transfuse all terran pressures/timings gets shut down ezpz but the opposite side of the spectrum is too difficult to hold and/or if u hold, no chance of making a comeback | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 04 2014 18:58 FaultyReDD wrote: I dont know how you guys feel about this but some changes i was thinkin about was the neosteel frame upgrade being unlocked at engie bay level, makes terrans able to defend the all ins we get crushed by from the other races a little easier maybe. I also feel like terran needs static d that doesnt cost supply. Give us a perdition turret! Im just saying, we need a static d that doesnt cost supply. There should be an upgrade to have turrets do splash dmg albeit doesnt have to be much. Just to help defend mutas because mutas will fly in with no fux given. Maybe an upgrade to make reapers more effective in mid-late game i dont know. I just feel that with overcharge/forcefields + queens/spines/transfuse all terran pressures/timings gets shut down ezpz but the opposite side of the spectrum is too difficult to hold and/or if u hold, no chance of making a comeback Terrans are the only race with static D the gives supply in the Planetary Fortress. | ||
|
Foreverkul
United States1649 Posts
On June 04 2014 20:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: Terrans are the only race with static D the gives supply in the Planetary Fortress. Hes talking about bunkers, the only early game option for defense, but it requires units to be built and inside it to mean anything. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 05 2014 06:18 Foreverkul wrote: Hes talking about bunkers, the only early game option for defense, but it requires units to be built and inside it to mean anything. I know what he meant  was being silly. | ||
|
Sajaki
Canada1135 Posts
EDIT: this is assuming that the latest patch is only a bandAid buff that gets figured out and the matchup returns to its slightly tilted state. If that patch equalizes the matchup via consistently slowing zerg gas income then this change would be unnecessary. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 05 2014 08:15 Sajaki wrote: Hmm, do you think giving missile turrets the ZvZ treatment and buffing their damage vs bio would be a sufficient way of bringing mid/late tvz back in line? Currently they do 12 (x2) but perhaps doing 12+4(or+6)(x2) would help the terran defend a little easier whilst being active with their army? EDIT: this is assuming that the latest patch is only a bandAid buff that gets figured out and the matchup returns to its slightly tilted state. If that patch equalizes the matchup via consistently slowing zerg gas income then this change would be unnecessary. They could also increase the overall damage of the missiles but split its attack to 4-6 something like 8 (x4) or 5 (x6) to give them an overall buff vs all air play but whose damage becomes greatly diminished in the late game (+3 armor, for example, would reduce the damage by -12 to -18 per attack) That way, you scare off early or midgame "muta deathballs" but still be able to employ that strategy as an uber late game tech switch. | ||
|
Sajaki
Canada1135 Posts
On June 05 2014 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: They could also increase the overall damage of the missiles but split its attack to 4-6 something like 8 (x4) or 5 (x6) to give them an overall buff vs all air play but whose damage becomes greatly diminished in the late game (+3 armor, for example, would reduce the damage by -12 to -18 per attack) That way, you scare off early or midgame "muta deathballs" but still be able to employ that strategy as an uber late game tech switch. In my opinion that change would go exactly in the opposite direction. Midgame mutas really aren't that big of a threat. They are a far bigger issue when you are pushing for 4 bases or more, when you cannot dedicate your army to defend so many locations AND attack/clear creep. | ||
|
FaultyReDD
25 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 05 2014 10:50 Sajaki wrote: In my opinion that change would go exactly in the opposite direction. Midgame mutas really aren't that big of a threat. They are a far bigger issue when you are pushing for 4 bases or more, when you cannot dedicate your army to defend so many locations AND attack/clear creep. Oh, so you don't want for there to be a point where mutas can be threatening? I don't get it. The only thing different about my suggested buff is that *IF* zerg decided to go to +3/+3 mutas, only then would they be safer to hit bases. I guess I like the idea of strong turrets keeping mutas at bay early, but requiring MASS turrets to fight mutas late. Do you prefer just a big anti-muta buff to turrets? | ||
|
mCon.Hephaistas
Netherlands891 Posts
But yes mutalisk are very strong, but it's our only option in the midgame, and not to mention they are very important in zvp aswell, so I think a plain nerf is not an option. A turret change might be a good idea, although turtle mech will become even more obnoxious if you are not even able to herras them with muta's anymore. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 05 2014 16:37 mCon.Hephaistas wrote: While I agree ZvT is currently Zerg favored it has something to do with the maps as well, the current mappool is just really good for us. But yes mutalisk are very strong, but it's our only option in the midgame, and not to mention they are very important in zvp aswell, so I think a plain nerf is not an option. A turret change might be a good idea, although turtle mech will become even more obnoxious if you are not even able to herras them with muta's anymore. Not everything that is being played is needed in the exact way it is being played. Mutalisks in ZvP are to a large degree only important to punish very greedy robotics play. Which would still be the case if they didn't regenerate as much since that is a plain issue of "here is air, you have nothing to deal with it" | ||
|
FaultyReDD
25 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 05 2014 16:47 FaultyReDD wrote: Swarm hosts/vipers are redic on mech anyway, not like u even need mutas. But im not saying kill mutas or buff/nerf whatever to make mutas unconventional to use in the match up im just saying mutas tend to have a snowball effect and no matter if i spent 1k of minerals at each base in turrets it isnt enough and thats absurd, also terran needs an effective spellcaster next expansion! Well, that's kind of the thing, isn't? That you have to spend 1k at each base to make it mutaproof. That you have to make thors early and sometimes delay taking your third, but much more, you cannot take a 4th base at any reasonable time. You always have to stay 3base against 4base zerg if he has mutas. And that's why you lose to SH/Viper then, because Zerg is mining more and earlier. And Terran has a ton of great spellcasters. OC, Medivac, Raven (vs Zerg and Terran), Ghost (vs Protoss). | ||
|
Sajaki
Canada1135 Posts
On June 05 2014 15:07 Thieving Magpie wrote: Oh, so you don't want for there to be a point where mutas can be threatening? I don't get it. The only thing different about my suggested buff is that *IF* zerg decided to go to +3/+3 mutas, only then would they be safer to hit bases. I guess I like the idea of strong turrets keeping mutas at bay early, but requiring MASS turrets to fight mutas late. Do you prefer just a big anti-muta buff to turrets? Well, I prefer an anti-muta buff to turrets when its actually relevant for them to get buffed, at not at a time where they are still semi-effective. Mutas are a lot larger investment on the zergs part then the terrans, cost wise. However, mutas have the added benefit of being useful in that they can actually fight other units, prevent drops, actually move... Yeah, if a muta player is going to a-move into 10 turrets they should get punished for it. No, 10 turrets shouldn't kill a big flock of mutas (like 10 spores do*) but trading 1K minerals for 700-700 (I tested 10 turrets vs 40 mutas, 33 vs building armor/hisec), while still cost effective, is just not good when the zerg just ignore that area (or that angle), and now terran has blown 1K mins in structures that don't do anything else. 10 turrets isn't going to make you Muta-proof either. If you are going for mass turrets you have to put turrets EVERYWHERE. 20 to cover 4+ bases isn't unrealistic at all. The worst thing about it all, is that if zerg was really dedicated, they can add in 2~ vipers and that cluster of turrets (and they do need to be clustered to be relevant late) is now useless. Literally zerg can kill most of this with next to 0 losses...) Thats why I think an anti-muta buff for them is in order. It doesn't have to be that big and I'm A OK with it being a buyable upgrade so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the midgame. But lategame on a large map** its just ridiculous how mutas can keep terran cramped while zerg gobbles up the whole map unimpeded. Stronger static D would allow terran to be active on the map and contest zerg for map control while not rolling over and dying if mutas counter the second terran steps out of his base. (* some test notes about muta efficiency vs static D, minimal micro) 40 (+3+3) mutas beats 10 turrets (hisec+armor) with 32~ mutas remaining 40 (+2 +0) mutas beats 10 turrets (0 ups) with 31~ mutas remaining 10 spores beats 40 (+2 +0) mutas with 6 spores remaining .... 10 spores beats 40 (+3 +3) with 4 spores remaining .... I don't want turrets to be that godlike. But I don't want them to be as negligable lategame as they are currently, for sure. | ||
|
Sajaki
Canada1135 Posts
On June 05 2014 16:55 Big J wrote: Well, that's kind of the thing, isn't? That you have to spend 1k at each base to make it mutaproof. That you have to make thors early and sometimes delay taking your third, but much more, you cannot take a 4th base at any reasonable time. You always have to stay 3base against 4base zerg if he has mutas. And that's why you lose to SH/Viper then, because Zerg is mining more and earlier. And Terran has a ton of great spellcasters. OC, Medivac, Raven (vs Zerg and Terran), Ghost (vs Protoss). LOL OC... Its true though, i;'ve seen them kill siege tanks before... | ||
| ||
