EPTBlizzard should not be focused on low-level balance in a professionally played game. Without changing the rules for each ladder ranking, it won't work.
[D] Fundamental problems with Terran - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Chronald
United States619 Posts
Blizzard should not be focused on low-level balance in a professionally played game. Without changing the rules for each ladder ranking, it won't work. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On December 01 2011 00:04 ceaRshaf wrote: After these recent patches we have terrans playing outdated strategies. It's fair for them to lose but not fair to call UP. Why doesn't Terran add 5-10 tanks to the BioBall? They want mobility? Well than they pay with vulnerability. Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly). Tanks are just bad tvp btw. Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss. Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On December 01 2011 00:09 RavenLoud wrote: Lol this reminds me of when terran said there's no way they could win a macro game back in March when the big maps started to come. Then they started to use 1 rax expand and realize how good it actually is. Cool story bro. Now this isn't relevant to what i wrote. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On December 01 2011 00:22 Hider wrote: Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly). Tanks are just bad tvp btw. Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss. Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play. Well maybe they should force tanks in the composition because they have splash. EMP the zealots and tanks melt them down. I find terrans really cocky that they want to win a fight with bio against a protoss army that has storm, colosus and archon, so big AOEs. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On December 01 2011 00:24 Hider wrote: Cool story bro. Now this isn't relevant to what i wrote. Keep pretending that it isn't. You can use vague rhetorical questions to say terran is hard in the lategame, but really no one here knows the game that well yet. | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
On December 01 2011 00:22 Hider wrote: Wrong wrong. Terrans dont do outdated strategies. THey do optimal strategies. Bio is everything terran can do(thor/banshee is really really bad if the toss knows its ocmming and is reacting correctly). Tanks are just bad tvp btw. Btw I am not saying terran cant win. Im just saying its ´much harder for terran to win than it is for toss. Mediocore toss plays > beats mediocore terran play. Except if terran is mediocre and wants to win he should simply 1-1-1 or marine+tank allin'. Its not like low level players lack options when it comes to winning. Protoss need to cut units to the bare minium which people just figured it out. This is why just recently we have seen the Protoss upswing in the GSL and Mixed tournaments. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.thinkdigit.com/FCKeditor/uploads/Brood%20Wars%20-%20Terran%20Siege%20Tanks%20get%20to%20see%20what%20a%20Zealot%20dropped%20on%20them%20feels%20like.jpg) Miss those days. Bio does a better job than vultures for holding the line and if you add Ravens to the mix slow pushing becomes really possible. EMP the toss army and fire Seeker Missles and the army has no chance in breaking the line. I am not saying this can work from the start, but there are ways to practice it. But no, we must go bio because this is the way to go. | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
I think that Blizzard has balanced the three races to revolve around different aspects of the Starcraft 2 skillset. While each piece of the pie is there in all three races, each race focuses on one thing above the other two. Terran is about micro. 9/10 units have an active ability and the two that don't (Hellion & Reaper) require a lot of micro to be used effectively. In contrast their build orders are more flexible than other races and do not need to be as set in stone, and their economy management is simple because Mules are OP and easy to use. Zerg is about economy management. When do you build bases, where do you build the base, how many workers do you have on what at what time, and most importantly how do you manage your larva. Zerg build orders are more about larva management than they are about what buildings do you build when, and their units comparatively have very few active abilities and require less precision micromanagement than the other two races (Mutalisks aside, those are pretty micro heavy) Protoss is about build order and strategic timing. Chronoboost, warp ins and all the sneaky shit Protoss can do leads to extremely strong timings that if executed properly can come faster than normally expected or from attack angles not normally expected. However, Protoss build orders are rather rigid compared to Terran and Zerg, they need to be planned out in advance and executed properly, and are difficult to change once you've got the buildings made. In contrast, Protoss economy management is not as complicated as Zergs, and their units do not require as much micro as Terran. A Protoss deathball usually requires very few active abilities, while a Terran deathball requires stimpack, EMP, siege mode, PDD and likely kiting as well. I think what this inevitably means is that at lower levels (non pro levels) Terran and Zerg are simply harder to play than Protoss. Protoss you can copy a pro's build order, learn it to the letter, and likely win a lot of games without really having perfect micro or understanding too much about what you're doing. Terran you have to be able to micro to do well and Zerg you have to be able to manage your larva on the fly. This also means that at higher levels, Terran is theoretically better than Zerg and Protoss, because all of their units are theoretically better. With perfect micro Marines beat just about anything in the game, so the measure of real game balance is less the units statistics and more how perfect is the players micro. Good thread. I enjoyed it. | ||
|
DrPandaPhD
5188 Posts
Both zerg and toss has been innovating in the matchups whereas terran (apart from TvT) has been stuck with the same thing. Hellion openers has been used for like what? a year now? Yes it's solid etc but maybe it's time for something new. I hardly ever see ravens still and that is way too good of a unit to skip. Need more thors / cattlebruisers (they are still viable) This post is biased as I play zerg. But srsly, start using something else but marauders vs protoss | ||
|
Bluerain
United States348 Posts
On November 30 2011 23:59 Hider wrote: Your again missing the point on a few levels here. Its simply bad design if a race cant win late game (or if its too hard tow in late game). its not hard to win late game as T unless u go marine tank all game. T is the best late game as ull always have an army supply advantage due to mules. just many dont make enuf production facil;ities and lose once armies r traded | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Awatsu
173 Posts
On December 01 2011 01:00 DrPandaPhD wrote: I do think terran play with outdated strategies. Protoss has been using a lot more lategame focused gameplan with upgrades and tier 3 units (archons / high templars / colossus / mothership) whereas terran runs around with their 3/3 marauders. Time to start using your tier 3 units? Can't expect winning going fully upgraded deathball vs deathball with just marauders as terran has been doing for so long now. Both zerg and toss has been innovating in the matchups whereas terran (apart from TvT) has been stuck with the same thing. Hellion openers has been used for like what? a year now? Yes it's solid etc but maybe it's time for something new. I hardly ever see ravens still and that is way too good of a unit to skip. Need more thors / cattlebruisers (they are still viable) This post is biased as I play zerg. But srsly, start using something else but marauders vs protoss are you suggesting going multiple thor/raven/battlecruiser against protoss tech, for real? guess what, if terran goes bio you can hope to be on par with protoss upgrades, but if you want to mix mech, hey !!! terran upgrades are not shared between bio and mech air / ground .... | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On December 01 2011 01:07 Sated wrote: At low-levels you have a 50% win-rate no matter what. It doesn't matter how the balance changes, you will always be at 50% win-rate. People who care about their ladder position etc. should use that as an incentive to get better instead of waiting for balance changes to get them further up the ladder. There is always lots of room to improve at the lower-levels, balance is hardly at the top of the list of problems most lower-level players have. Balance only matters at the very top-level of competition, where win-rates aren't balanced out to be 50%. Where win-rates are based on skill. People like Stephano and Happy getting a ridiculous win % on ladder isn't a fluke or a mistake, it's because they are genuinely better than most people they play on the ladder. Blizzard should only balance the game at this level. Completely agree. Everybody thinks that they are playing against worse players than them or maybe equal in terms of skill and it's unacceptable to lose to those kind of people. No dudes, if you lost to them you lost because they played better not because they play a certain race. | ||
|
syllabic
29 Posts
its not hard to win late game as T unless u go marine tank all game. T is the best late game as ull always have an army supply advantage due to mules. just many dont make enuf production facil;ities and lose once armies r traded Doesn't matter when protoss gets superior efficiency in battle due to all their AoE, and can remax much faster than you. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On December 01 2011 01:11 syllabic wrote: Doesn't matter when protoss gets superior efficiency in battle due to all their AoE, and can remax much faster than you. Start using your own AOE units. | ||
|
xSixGeneralHan
United States528 Posts
| ||
|
koppik
United States676 Posts
| ||
|
MVTaylor
United Kingdom2893 Posts
On December 01 2011 00:31 ceaRshaf wrote: Well maybe they should force tanks in the composition because they have splash. EMP the zealots and tanks melt them down. I find terrans really cocky that they want to win a fight with bio against a protoss army that has storm, colosus and archon, so big AOEs. T would need three flipping tank shots to destroy one zealot once it's shield had gone. Even without Zealot charge the Zealot would be close enough to a deployed tank before the third shot that the tank wouldn't fire. When it was a chargelot then the tank would fire once and then promptly be obliterated. Tanks do not work in a TvP that goes any sort of length due to zealot charge and stalker blink meaning they can be on top of a tank in second, blink allowing P to move around wherever the tanks happen to be, immortals negating the majority of tank damage while being able to three shot a tank in return, phoenixes being able to lift up deployed tanks... enough reasons? Meanwhile Hellions are far too flimsy (hurrah for HotS!) while Thors, Battlecruisers, Banshees and Ravens are all screaming "please feedback me!" and are easily countered with mass immortal for Thors and Stalkers/Phoenix/Voids depending on what air army Terran is going for. The only WORKABLE AoE Terran has is EMP and against mass chargelot that can at most reduce the P army to 66% of it's max hp and really isn't that big a deal considering armour is upgraded to 3 before shield is upgraded once and the innate +1 Zealots gain to their armour. Meanwhile I would love to know how on earth Terran are playing with outdated strats. I would honestly say T are playing with the best strat possible against P where you assume the game will last a fair length of time and the P can be bothered to scout you and assumed to react accordingly if needs be. If you look through the recent patch balance notes (say until... 1.2) you'll see a fair few P buffs, one key nerf that is matched by a similar T nerf. If you look through for T's you'll see many nerfs and one or two buffs... battlecruiser and seeker missile speed increases. For all this harping on that suddenly P have invented many new builds I frankly don't buy it. They are using builds that they've used before but that are now simply better given patch changes. The great increase in warp prism play isn't mass innovation, it's the fact that until the patches it was in the same boat as Terran dropships and you couldn't run it over turrets or a few guarding marines / stalkers without it dying. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
It's harder for foreigners, but the biggest difference is either a difference in skillsets that are favored (micro vs. macro) and builds/playstyle. Korean terrans are not having troubles at master level, and neither are protoss while zergs struggle and yet zergs are the most prevalent race in EU/NA. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
On December 01 2011 01:16 mvtaylor wrote: T would need three flipping tank shots to destroy one zealot once it's shield had gone. Even without Zealot charge the Zealot would be close enough to a deployed tank before the third shot that the tank wouldn't fire. When it was a chargelot then the tank would fire once and then promptly be obliterated. Tanks do not work in a TvP that goes any sort of length due to zealot charge and stalker blink meaning they can be on top of a tank in second, blink allowing P to move around wherever the tanks happen to be, immortals negating the majority of tank damage while being able to three shot a tank in return, phoenixes being able to lift up deployed tanks... enough reasons? Meanwhile Hellions are far too flimsy (hurrah for HotS!) while Thors, Battlecruisers, Banshees and Ravens are all screaming "please feedback me!" and are easily countered with mass immortal for Thors and Stalkers/Phoenix/Voids depending on what air army Terran is going for. The only WORKABLE AoE Terran has is EMP and against mass chargelot that can at most reduce the P army to 66% of it's max hp and really isn't that big a deal considering armour is upgraded to 3 before shield is upgraded once and the innate +1 Zealots gain to their armour. First of all tanks should be placed behind the line. Blinking stalkers on top of the tanks should be suicide for the toss because bio would melt down everything. Second, EMPing and firing Seeker Missiles at the zealots would melt them and even if they don't they would not stand a chance in front of the bio + tanks. To delay the chargelots you can even path their way with Auto-Turrets. Blink stalkers would dance in front of point defence drones. And I am talking about a new composition, not using every unit on it's own, because that is fail. I think idra should start talking about the raven as he was about the ghost "People need to start using them". | ||
| ||
