|
On December 05 2011 09:53 Happylime wrote:
Basically we need more big meaty units, and harassment units (specifically banshees) need to be more frail than they currently are.
This is actually everything that the Terran army DOESN'T need more of and what is currently causing problems in the game.
-Marines have 15 more HP than their BW equivalent.
-Marauders have 125 hp, compare that to the firebats 50hp, we won't even talk about 6 range and concussive shells.
-Ghosts have 100, +55hp compared to BW.
-Siege tanks got 10 HP
-Hellions got 10 HP
-Medivacs heal 2x as fast and 2x as efficiently as medics.
-Thors are an abomination of a unit and getting removed by Blizzard in HotS because they present too many problems.
From a design perspective, the last thing Terran needs is more beef, if anything, they could use 5 less HP on Marines (I've pointed out all the reasons this would make their unit interactions actually interesting in previous threads) and probably some sort of HP reduction on Marauders too.
The whole Terran army generally has a 30% DPS boost compared to Protoss or Zerg, not to mention longer range and more splash. Giving the Terran army more beef without significantly reducing their DPS is essentially making them unstoppable. It's already basically impossible to beat a Terran in a straight-up fight as is.
Beefy Terran = Bad Design (see the Marauder).
|
On December 05 2011 12:12 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 12:08 Sajaki wrote:
My quick opinions on the subject, as I play both races. . . .
As Protoss, I feel that the micro is more clutch, as in with FF, if you screw up your forcefields (especially in the early-mid game) It can very well cost you the game. Good micro and bad micro can mean life and death in that regard.
As terran, I feel you are allowed to make more mistakes with your micro and not get punished horribly, however i feel that (to make up for this) you have to micro MORE.
Early game, Toss requires more micro then Terran in order to survive (2 rax, 1-1-1, etc). Midgame and lategame, however, I would say that the Terran player has to micro more in order to come out ahead in a fight. There is no way anyone can argue that chargelot archon is more micro intensive the MMMG, Chargelot archon is the epitome of A-Move. The micro intensive part is with casting feedback and storm, which is matched in difficulty with EMP + snipe. But the terran has to stutter step (for his life btw), and whilst stutter stepping in itself isn't very complicated, it requires a lot more time effort and attention then, say, forcefields.
So, to satisfy both sides (?) I would say that Protoss micro is Quality over Quantity, screwing up can be very costly, especially early/mid game. And Terran is Quantity over Quality, in that screwing up wont end the game (usually), but it requires much more time as you have to micro hard over long durations.
This guy is smart. My feelings on it exactly. Good example is Protoss early FF on the ramp is slightly off, protoss lose. Terran miss a stutter step and take a bit of extra damage then continue stuttering(?) to do almost exactly the same amount of damage. Note, i'm not saying stutter step vs not stutter stepping, just if you stutter step poorly you're still "ok" but if you FF poorly you lose int he early game.
I see you've never stutter stepped against banelings. If you stutter step poorly you die.
|
On December 08 2011 14:15 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 09:53 Happylime wrote:
Basically we need more big meaty units, and harassment units (specifically banshees) need to be more frail than they currently are. This is actually everything that the Terran army DOESN'T need more of and what is currently causing problems in the game. -Marines have 15 more HP than their BW equivalent. -Marauders have 125 hp, compare that to the firebats 50hp, we won't even talk about 6 range and concussive shells. -Ghosts have 100, +55hp compared to BW. -Siege tanks got 10 HP -Hellions got 10 HP -Medivacs heal 2x as fast and 2x as efficiently as medics. -Thors are an abomination of a unit and getting removed by Blizzard in HotS because they present too many problems. From a design perspective, the last thing Terran needs is more beef, if anything, they could use 5 less HP on Marines (I've pointed out all the reasons this would make their unit interactions actually interesting in previous threads) and probably some sort of HP reduction on Marauders too. The whole Terran army generally has a 30% DPS boost compared to Protoss or Zerg, not to mention longer range and more splash. Giving the Terran army more beef without significantly reducing their DPS is essentially making them unstoppable. It's already basically impossible to beat a Terran in a straight-up fight as is. Beefy Terran = Bad Design (see the Marauder).
Such a brillant idea to compare units with different designs simply because they hold the same place in the production facility. I mean, Marauders are known to be melee-like AoE damage dealers against small targets, right? And Ghosts in Broodwar were your unit of choice against Zerg lategame, while being necessary against any Protoss force past early game, eh? And maybe Medivacs heal faster because they're higher tech? And where does this stupid "30% dps boost" figure come from, I ask? More splash from Terran, really? Fungal and/or banes against Siege Tank splash, EMP against Colossi/Storm, where do you see some splash edge for Terran?
If all you want to do is whine about Terran being supposedly imbalanced, please don't try to bring in some terrible ""arguments"" based on biased comparisons and imaginary figures.
|
This is not a problem with Terran. It's a problem with the other races.
Terran is extremely well designed. All units should be bad for bad players and good for good players.
The other races need to be more like Terran if anything.
|
"In broodwar I would argue that multitasking owness (during battles or otherwise) was fairly evenly spread between the races, but in its current state this is not necessarily true for SC2."
I assume that multitasking "oneness" refers to homogeneity of army control and base management across the races.
I would argue that multitasking "oneness" exists to an even lesser extent in Brood War than in Starcraft 2. I'd give reasons, but you should just go play the game and find out for yourself.
Also, this "oneness" is not something I'd like Starcraft 2 to have more of.
|
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
|
On December 05 2011 16:59 .Sic. wrote:
I love how this guy blatantly leaves out the fact that a terran won the last two GSLs. Stop beating a dead horse by talking about all this design flaw crap. Go play some games and get better instead.
I love how you literally don't read the first post of this topic and see that it blatantly states that it's for people outside of Korea.
As far as this topic goes, I think that Terrans do get punished for being not as good. But I think Terrans should just adapt in a better way and outplay their opponents. Speaking as a Terran player myself.
|
On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote:
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken?
Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
|
On December 08 2011 14:54 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote:
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken? Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro.
People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
|
On December 08 2011 14:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 14:54 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote:
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken? Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro. People still think that the other races don't have to micro?
not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
|
On December 08 2011 14:21 Lunaro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 12:12 Kharnage wrote:On December 05 2011 12:08 Sajaki wrote:
My quick opinions on the subject, as I play both races. . . .
As Protoss, I feel that the micro is more clutch, as in with FF, if you screw up your forcefields (especially in the early-mid game) It can very well cost you the game. Good micro and bad micro can mean life and death in that regard.
As terran, I feel you are allowed to make more mistakes with your micro and not get punished horribly, however i feel that (to make up for this) you have to micro MORE.
Early game, Toss requires more micro then Terran in order to survive (2 rax, 1-1-1, etc). Midgame and lategame, however, I would say that the Terran player has to micro more in order to come out ahead in a fight. There is no way anyone can argue that chargelot archon is more micro intensive the MMMG, Chargelot archon is the epitome of A-Move. The micro intensive part is with casting feedback and storm, which is matched in difficulty with EMP + snipe. But the terran has to stutter step (for his life btw), and whilst stutter stepping in itself isn't very complicated, it requires a lot more time effort and attention then, say, forcefields.
So, to satisfy both sides (?) I would say that Protoss micro is Quality over Quantity, screwing up can be very costly, especially early/mid game. And Terran is Quantity over Quality, in that screwing up wont end the game (usually), but it requires much more time as you have to micro hard over long durations.
This guy is smart. My feelings on it exactly. Good example is Protoss early FF on the ramp is slightly off, protoss lose. Terran miss a stutter step and take a bit of extra damage then continue stuttering(?) to do almost exactly the same amount of damage. Note, i'm not saying stutter step vs not stutter stepping, just if you stutter step poorly you're still "ok" but if you FF poorly you lose int he early game. I see you've never stutter stepped against banelings. If you stutter step poorly you die.
That is the one and only example you have for getting badly punished for doing a poor job of stutter stepping. Especially in the early game.
Compare the FF issue. Against early rushes protoss usually have 1 FF (1 zealot, 1 sentry, 1 stalker. standard as standard can be). Miss it and you've just lost.
It doesn't matter what unit composition. Marines, maruaders, lings, banelings, roaches, hellions. you're screwed. Hell, if it's a 5 zealot rush you're dead.
|
On December 08 2011 15:03 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 14:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 08 2011 14:54 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote:
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken? Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro. People still think that the other races don't have to micro? not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
Yes I definitely agree. Terran's units make it so the player can outplay their opponent with drops and micro whereas the other races can't really do that to that extent.
I think it's a design flaw of the other two races moreso than a design flaw of Terran.
|
On December 08 2011 15:08 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 15:03 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 08 2011 14:54 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote:
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken? Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro. People still think that the other races don't have to micro? not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem. Yes I definitely agree. Terran's units make it so the player can outplay their opponent with drops and micro whereas the other races can't really do that to that extent. I think it's a design flaw of the other two races moreso than a design flaw of Terran.
Thats what I meant. I think Terran is designed great in that it requires a lot of micro and allows for great play. The real problem lies in the other races, because they can't really micro, and dont have the opportunity to do amazing plays like multipronged drops (although some protosses are now discovering a unit called the warp prism).
|
On December 08 2011 14:41 LunarC wrote:
"In broodwar I would argue that multitasking owness (during battles or otherwise) was fairly evenly spread between the races, but in its current state this is not necessarily true for SC2."
I assume that multitasking "oneness" refers to homogeneity of army control and base management across the races.
I would argue that multitasking "oneness" exists to an even lesser extent in Brood War than in Starcraft 2. I'd give reasons, but you should just go play the game and find out for yourself.
Also, this "oneness" is not something I'd like Starcraft 2 to have more of.
i think he means "onus," meaning that every single race in broodwar needs to micro to win a fight, but in sc2 certain races in certain matchups don't need to do anything.
|
eliminate all melee units. have everything be ranged. that should solve the micro problem.
|
On December 08 2011 15:31 JoeSchmoe wrote:
eliminate all melee units. have everything be ranged. that should solve the micro problem.
Can't wait to fight dozens of ranged 3-3 cracklings.
|
On December 08 2011 15:03 kofman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 14:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 08 2011 14:54 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote:
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken? Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro. People still think that the other races don't have to micro? not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem.
I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
|
On December 08 2011 16:14 ZorBa.G wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 15:03 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 08 2011 14:54 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote:
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken? Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro. People still think that the other races don't have to micro? not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem. I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss.
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army.
You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it?
Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning.
You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race.
EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit.
Just wanted to point it out.
|
On December 08 2011 16:40 Tingles wrote:
And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army.
You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it?
Nice way to reverse things. By the way, Zealots are tier1 too, so what's your point?
On December 08 2011 16:40 Tingles wrote:
Mech is starting to get used a little bit.
Really? Who uses it in TvP?
|
On December 08 2011 16:40 Tingles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 16:14 ZorBa.G wrote:On December 08 2011 15:03 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 08 2011 14:54 kofman wrote:On December 08 2011 14:43 Skyda wrote:
Terran having a skill gap between players who have good micro and those who don't doesn't make the race fundamentally incorrect? How have you managed to come to this conclusion that because it requires one aspect of the game more than the other that it is broken? Its not really that Terran is broken in that Terrans have to micro, its broken that the other races don't have to micro. People still think that the other races don't have to micro? not compared to terran. and also terran's units scale a lot better with micro (and get a lot worse without) than the other races. thats a problem. I agree with this, if talking in regards to the T v Z mu. But in T v P, Terran needs to micro in order to "keep up" with toss. And so you fucking should when you have teir 1 units as the balls of your army. You have an entire half an army that never gets used because MMMGV is so fucking good, why would you need to go it? Mech is starting to get used a little bit. And mech basically has almost no micro ... it's all about the strategy and positioning. You have to micro more cause of the unit composition you choose, NOT because of your race. EDIT: Also don't want to get into a "HERP DERP MECH ISNT VIABLE THATS WHY HERP DERP" ... dont' give a shit. Just wanted to point it out.
Chargelots, blinkstalkers, sentries: Tier 1(.5)
stimmarines, stimmarauders: Tier 1(.5)
Also, about tiers:
+ Show Spoiler [TERRAN] +- 1: Barracks
- 2: Factory and Ghost Academy
- 3: Armory and Starport
- 4: Fusion Core
The reason why Ghost Academy, Armory and Fusion Core are half tier higher than it should be is that they need a tech lab at their respective structure to allow its unit to be built. - 1: Gateway
- 2: Robotics Facility and Stargate
- 2.5: Robotics Bay, Fleet Beacon, Dark Shrine and Templar Archives
So, while you may say you have higher tech units, you don't count vikings and medivacs as Tier 3 (which they are). And by those tiers I don't mean like it's easier for Protoss to get to its max tier than Terran. But it's just to show that it's not like you think it is. Getting to tier 2.5 as Protoss should be as expensive as getting to tier 4.
Terran Tier 4: 150+150/100+150/100+150/150+50/25 = 650/375
(Barracks + Factory + Starport + Fusion Core + Tech Lab)
Protoss Tier 2.5 (HT): 150+150+150/100+150/200 = 600/300
(Gate + Core + Council + Templar)
Protoss Tier 2.5 (DT): 150+150+150/100+100/250 = 550/350
(Gate + Core + Council + DS)
Protoss Tier 2.5 (Carrier): 150+150+150/150+300/200 = 750/350
(Gate + Core + Stargate + Fleet Beacon)
Protoss Tier 2.5 (Colossus): 150+150+200/100+200/200 = 700/300
(Gate + Core + Robo + Robo Bay)
The great problem doing this kind of comparison is that the cost of Tech Labs increases with the count of structures, while Protoss don't have this. And the overall cost-efficiency of units through tier is something like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
