|
On June 05 2014 16:58 Sajaki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 15:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 05 2014 10:50 Sajaki wrote:On June 05 2014 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. 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? 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.
After the muta buffs introduced in HOTS (speed, regeneration), the overseer speed buff and the widow mine nerf, mutas are just a little bit too easy to use. AOE damage is no longer a real mutalisk deterrent. Back in WOL you could wear down a Mutalisk ball over time with carefully placed thors or a few storms. Now with the speed and especially the regeneration this is far more difficult.
While this may not be a balance problem per se, if certain hard counter units like phoenixes of ultraspores are added, i think it's pretty bad from a gameplay perspective. At least for me positioning and terrain usage is a big part of the appeal of a RTS game. If Mutalisks are too strong, and IMHO they are right now, the game get too volatile. I wish they would take away at least half of the regeneration and buff other zerg options. Mass muta is just disgusting to watch or play against. Playing it feels a bit like trolling :D. Over all, its just not good gameplay.
|
im talkin all around spell casters man, Zerg can use festor/viper/queens in every game/mu. They work and are well rounded. Same for protoss in sentry/ht/moco
terran has ghosts which if u dont die before hand are only viable in tvp. Ravens are nice i cant complain there but they are hardly game changers in a realistic game.the seeker missle needs a buff maybe cause lets be honest, any and mostly every unit runs away before the seeker goes if, it requires just a little micro and the energy is wasted and no dmg is done. still i think the raven is a good unit and i <3 em, just feel like they need some more oomph, to make them a core unit rather then marine/rauder/medi all the time lol
|
Ravens are fine in TvZ and TvT, actually it's the best unit of the lategame in these MU.
To make it viable in TvP you'll need to nerf feed back tho.
|
I think Ravens are fine overall. I play Mech and use mass Ravens in any MU, even vs Protoss. PDDs are great against Tempests and Stalkers. Playing Ghosts and Ravens, you can even blanket EMP, then mass Seeker and watch a Protoss deathball evaporate.
I think the situation of Ghosts is way worse. They're borderline useless in TvT and TvZ. So you get to play both main spellcasters only in TvP, while Zerg (Viper and Infestors) and Protoss (HT, Sentry and MSC) can play them pretty much in all MUs. Terran doesn't need another spellcaster, Ghosts just need 1 spell that makes them useful in TvT and TvZ.
|
On June 05 2014 16:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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"
Lol, mutas can also be good vs stargate openings.
Actually all zergs do is either swarm hosts or mutas's atm vs toss.
Sometimes you can do a midgame timing with ling hydra or roach hydra viper, but they are getting figured out more and more, and after that zerg usually switches into swarm host or muta anyway
|
On June 05 2014 21:12 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 16:45 Big J wrote: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" Lol, mutas can also be good vs stargate openings. Actually all zergs do is either swarm hosts or mutas's atm vs toss. Sometimes you can do a midgame timing with ling hydra or roach hydra viper, but they are getting figured out more and more, and after that zerg usually switches into swarm host or muta anyway
Strawman. Try again.
Where did I say that greedy robotics play cannot include a Stargate or even a phoenix opening? A lot of Protoss that lose to mutas do so because they open Stargate and then tech into colossi+third base off somthing like 1gateway but don't see the mutas coming and then have 1-2Colossi and a bunch of sentries against mutalisk/corruptor. (not saying Ps should play differently btw. I think this is THE way to go)
And you really believe that tweaking mutalisk regen will immidiatly break all of this. "Gosh, mutalisks only regen 0.66HP/sec, now 3 Colossi can hold mutalisks." Not to mention that there is an easy solution anyways, that is, to slightly nerf phoenixes too, since this hardly interacts with anything else, given how phoenixes are hardly used against Terran. E.g. 1range goes back into the upgrade; attack cooldown from 1.11 to 1.2; convert a small amount of shields into HP; attack damage from 5 (+5vs light) to 5(+4vs light)...
|
On June 05 2014 16:58 Sajaki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 15:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 05 2014 10:50 Sajaki wrote:On June 05 2014 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. 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? 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.
Oh okay, that makes more sense. I get what you're looking at then.
It sounds like a turret upgrade is definitely what is being looked for. Either a +damage or +attack speed upgrade that you can get at a late tier structure (Fusion Core, for example, call it "Radioactive Rounds, turrets deal +10 to bio")
|
On June 05 2014 19:25 FaultyReDD wrote:
im talkin all around spell casters man, Zerg can use festor/viper/queens in every game/mu. They work and are well rounded. Same for protoss in sentry/ht/moco
terran has ghosts which if u dont die before hand are only viable in tvp. Ravens are nice i cant complain there but they are hardly game changers in a realistic game.the seeker missle needs a buff maybe cause lets be honest, any and mostly every unit runs away before the seeker goes if, it requires just a little micro and the energy is wasted and no dmg is done. still i think the raven is a good unit and i <3 em, just feel like they need some more oomph, to make them a core unit rather then marine/rauder/medi all the time lol
Not to sound like a dick, but I don't think a spellcaster is used as much as the Medivac, Terran's flying spellcaster. Sure its only a spellcaster out of technicality, but it is one.
I think what you're really wanting is non-automated caster whose effects are not only flashier--but bigger. Ghost was supposed to be that with its anti-protoss, anti-zerg spells coupled with cloak and Nuke. And yet, somehow, they felt that "can't be used on massive" was not the right way to go with the spell?
I do agree with you though, its just weird to me that the most used mana burner (and probably the most feedbacked unit in the game) always slips under the radar of "casters"
|
On June 05 2014 21:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 21:12 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:On June 05 2014 16:45 Big J wrote: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" Lol, mutas can also be good vs stargate openings. Actually all zergs do is either swarm hosts or mutas's atm vs toss. Sometimes you can do a midgame timing with ling hydra or roach hydra viper, but they are getting figured out more and more, and after that zerg usually switches into swarm host or muta anyway Strawman. Try again. Where did I say that greedy robotics play cannot include a Stargate or even a phoenix opening? A lot of Protoss that lose to mutas do so because they open Stargate and then tech into colossi+third base off somthing like 1gateway but don't see the mutas coming and then have 1-2Colossi and a bunch of sentries against mutalisk/corruptor. (not saying Ps should play differently btw. I think this is THE way to go) And you really believe that tweaking mutalisk regen will immidiatly break all of this. "Gosh, mutalisks only regen 0.66HP/sec, now 3 Colossi can hold mutalisks." Not to mention that there is an easy solution anyways, that is, to slightly nerf phoenixes too, since this hardly interacts with anything else, given how phoenixes are hardly used against Terran. E.g. 1range goes back into the upgrade; attack cooldown from 1.11 to 1.2; convert a small amount of shields into HP; attack damage from 5 (+5vs light) to 5(+4vs light)...
Yeah cuz that's the only build protoss players ever do.... :')
But yes I agree IF u also nerf phoenix a bit, then it could work, I still don't think it's a good idea though.
I rather have them make mines a bit stronger again
|
Anyone see that Innovation vs herO game?
Overcharge+Oracles....
2 bunkers + 8 marines rush Protoss natural, defends only with probes and overcharge, losing only probes and MSC.
Flies oracle into Terran base, GG.
._.
|
On June 06 2014 12:38 Foreverkul wrote:
Anyone see that Innovation vs herO game?
Overcharge+Oracles....
2 bunkers + 8 marines rush Protoss natural, defends only with probes and overcharge, losing only probes and MSC.
Flies oracle into Terran base, GG.
._.
you say he "defends only with probes," but he lost so many that he would have been absolutely 100% dead without the oracle
|
On June 06 2014 12:42 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:38 Foreverkul wrote:
Anyone see that Innovation vs herO game?
Overcharge+Oracles....
2 bunkers + 8 marines rush Protoss natural, defends only with probes and overcharge, losing only probes and MSC.
Flies oracle into Terran base, GG.
._. you say he "defends only with probes," but he lost so many that he would have been absolutely 100% dead without the oracle
Dont forget OVERCHARGE.
So despite that you say that Innovations bunker rush succeeded, it still meant nothing.
It means that bunker rush isn't viable ever against Protoss because even if you succeed you still lose?
|
I'll admit, I've always been kind of salty about Oracles. Its like a Banshee on steroids that can be made even earlier and for less (if you included the cost of cloak). Making 1 or 2 of a single unit at the start of the game shouldn't be able to force your opponent to GG. I'm less salty about overcharge because it was something the Protoss needed, but its so powerful that it shuts down almost any kind of early push by any race.
The only other gripe I have is one that revealed itself because of the massive maps and its that Terran don't have a good way to transition between tech choices like other races, its either mech, or bio, theirs no other viable composition or way to switch mid game.
|
On June 06 2014 12:56 Foreverkul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:42 Waise wrote:On June 06 2014 12:38 Foreverkul wrote:
Anyone see that Innovation vs herO game?
Overcharge+Oracles....
2 bunkers + 8 marines rush Protoss natural, defends only with probes and overcharge, losing only probes and MSC.
Flies oracle into Terran base, GG.
._. you say he "defends only with probes," but he lost so many that he would have been absolutely 100% dead without the oracle Dont forget OVERCHARGE. So despite that you say that Innovations bunker rush succeeded, it still meant nothing. It means that bunker rush isn't viable ever against Protoss because even if you succeed you still lose?
Its iffy to say it succeeded. I think herO willingly traded the probes for those marines because he knew innovation wouldn't have enough to defend the oracle counterattack if he killed those units at the front. Even at the rediculous cost of the majority of his econ, there just isn't anything terran can do when they cannot build units/turrets. So in no way did I think that bunker rush was successful.
|
On June 06 2014 13:48 Sajaki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:56 Foreverkul wrote:On June 06 2014 12:42 Waise wrote:On June 06 2014 12:38 Foreverkul wrote:
Anyone see that Innovation vs herO game?
Overcharge+Oracles....
2 bunkers + 8 marines rush Protoss natural, defends only with probes and overcharge, losing only probes and MSC.
Flies oracle into Terran base, GG.
._. you say he "defends only with probes," but he lost so many that he would have been absolutely 100% dead without the oracle Dont forget OVERCHARGE. So despite that you say that Innovations bunker rush succeeded, it still meant nothing. It means that bunker rush isn't viable ever against Protoss because even if you succeed you still lose? Its iffy to say it succeeded. I think herO willingly traded the probes for those marines because he knew innovation wouldn't have enough to defend the oracle counterattack if he killed those units at the front. Even at the rediculous cost of the majority of his econ, there just isn't anything terran can do when they cannot build units/turrets. So in no way did I think that bunker rush was successful.
Well he didn't succeed because he lost. The problem is Protoss couldn't have defended without overcharge. No units to defend? No problem, ignore Terran plays, use overcharge, gg. Hero didnt have to change his play to counter arguably the strongest Terran rush strat. It didn't matter if Terran killed that Nexus or not, didnt matter he killed all those probes or more. What is Terran going to do against Oracle? Hes not walking back with those Marines no matter the outcome. Even if Inno had marines left, attacking the main nexus wouldn't do anything either. Ultimately the only viable choice is to never rush Protoss because you cant make a successful attack or defense.
|
On June 06 2014 16:45 Foreverkul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 13:48 Sajaki wrote:On June 06 2014 12:56 Foreverkul wrote:On June 06 2014 12:42 Waise wrote:On June 06 2014 12:38 Foreverkul wrote:
Anyone see that Innovation vs herO game?
Overcharge+Oracles....
2 bunkers + 8 marines rush Protoss natural, defends only with probes and overcharge, losing only probes and MSC.
Flies oracle into Terran base, GG.
._. you say he "defends only with probes," but he lost so many that he would have been absolutely 100% dead without the oracle Dont forget OVERCHARGE. So despite that you say that Innovations bunker rush succeeded, it still meant nothing. It means that bunker rush isn't viable ever against Protoss because even if you succeed you still lose? Its iffy to say it succeeded. I think herO willingly traded the probes for those marines because he knew innovation wouldn't have enough to defend the oracle counterattack if he killed those units at the front. Even at the rediculous cost of the majority of his econ, there just isn't anything terran can do when they cannot build units/turrets. So in no way did I think that bunker rush was successful. Well he didn't succeed because he lost. The problem is Protoss couldn't have defended without overcharge. No units to defend? No problem, ignore Terran plays, use overcharge, gg. Hero didnt have to change his play to counter arguably the strongest Terran rush strat. It didn't matter if Terran killed that Nexus or not, didnt matter he killed all those probes or more. What is Terran going to do against Oracle? Hes not walking back with those Marines no matter the outcome. Even if Inno had marines left, attacking the main nexus wouldn't do anything either. Ultimately the only viable choice is to never rush Protoss because you cant make a successful attack or defense.
Sounds more like a topic for the Terran Help Me Thread then, if you are only here to discuss whether you can or cannot rush a Protoss as Terran.
|
On June 06 2014 12:42 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2014 12:38 Foreverkul wrote:
Anyone see that Innovation vs herO game?
Overcharge+Oracles....
2 bunkers + 8 marines rush Protoss natural, defends only with probes and overcharge, losing only probes and MSC.
Flies oracle into Terran base, GG.
._. you say he "defends only with probes," but he lost so many that he would have been absolutely 100% dead without the oracle
If the money wasn't going to oracles, it was going towards something else. Which means he could've held it without losing many/any probes
|
On June 06 2014 16:54 Big J wrote:
Sounds more like a topic for the Terran Help Me Thread then, if you are only here to discuss whether you can or cannot rush a Protoss as Terran.
My gripe isn't with whether can rush or not, and using any specific game doesn't settle any point (its just one posible example), my problem is the impact of Oracles on PvT.
Oracles are a light fast, high DPS unit. How do you stop Oracles?
In PvZ, Zerg has Queens which are a natural unit to build.
In PvP, Protoss will have Stalkers and/or Phoenix and/or Overcharge, all on a natural build path.
In PvT, Terran has Marines. But then there's a problem. Oracles kill workers fast, but whats really similar to a worker in HP? Marines. Meaning that the Terran natural counter is countered by Oracle. You need at least 4 marines at the same place, any less and you're dead. You can't even make more marines because they die so fast they deal 0 damage. Turrets would be ideal, but are not part of the natural build order (hurting economy) and they only protect against oracle, they have no other use in PvT when in the mineral line (except for DTs, but they come out later and are not as devastating). This doesn't account for the fact Terran needs to be applying pressure, so its not likely they will have just 4 marines standing in the mineral line.
The idea of the Oracle is good (same with Overcharge), but they didn't just fill a gap in Protoss tech, they created an even bigger gap in Terran tech, thus contributing to the scarcity of Terran at high levels. (Note they aren't the sole cause of the problem, its the combination of lots of small problems.)
|
On June 05 2014 20:33 BurningRanger wrote:
I think Ravens are fine overall. I play Mech and use mass Ravens in any MU, even vs Protoss. PDDs are great against Tempests and Stalkers. Playing Ghosts and Ravens, you can even blanket EMP, then mass Seeker and watch a Protoss deathball evaporate.
I think the situation of Ghosts is way worse. They're borderline useless in TvT and TvZ. So you get to play both main spellcasters only in TvP, while Zerg (Viper and Infestors) and Protoss (HT, Sentry and MSC) can play them pretty much in all MUs. Terran doesn't need another spellcaster, Ghosts just need 1 spell that makes them useful in TvT and TvZ. I wouldn't call raven fine when mass raven is broken OP and few ravens are in the most situations useless.
|
On June 06 2014 18:12 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 20:33 BurningRanger wrote:
I think Ravens are fine overall. I play Mech and use mass Ravens in any MU, even vs Protoss. PDDs are great against Tempests and Stalkers. Playing Ghosts and Ravens, you can even blanket EMP, then mass Seeker and watch a Protoss deathball evaporate.
I think the situation of Ghosts is way worse. They're borderline useless in TvT and TvZ. So you get to play both main spellcasters only in TvP, while Zerg (Viper and Infestors) and Protoss (HT, Sentry and MSC) can play them pretty much in all MUs. Terran doesn't need another spellcaster, Ghosts just need 1 spell that makes them useful in TvT and TvZ. I wouldn't call raven fine when mass raven is broken OP and few ravens are in the most situations useless.
Well, I don't know what problems you have playing against mass Ravens, but they're not unbeatable and take a huge amount of gas to build. Especially with the current map pool it's pretty hard to get all the bases up for that amount of gas.
Depending on the opponents units, even a few Ravens with PDDs can make a huge difference in battles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
