EPTQ & A With David Kim - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sentient
United States437 Posts
| ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On December 20 2011 06:09 Sentient wrote: I don't like David Kim's take on the MULE at all. IMO, the MULE is perfectly fine for most of the game, even on gold bases. The issue becomes in the late game where Terran can sneak a single base (preferably on gold minerals), drop 10-20 MULEs, and accumulate thousands of minerals in less than a minute. That and the ability to sacrifice 50 SCVs for increased army supply makes MULEs favor Terran heavily in the late late game. I wish they would playtest a cooldown, because I think this is a common suggestion that would only affect the late game and make it a little less ridiculous. Then explain me why terran is struggling lategame in tvp? | ||
|
MutaKingPrime
Korea (South)43 Posts
Our stance on this kind of issue is simple: We intentionally make different aspects of the game difficult for the different races. where's the weak point for terran? no troll here I honestly wanna know. | ||
|
SiaBBo
Finland132 Posts
| ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On December 20 2011 06:15 MutaKingPrime wrote: + Show Spoiler + Our stance on this kind of issue is simple: We intentionally make different aspects of the game difficult for the different races. where's the weak point for terran? no troll here I honestly wanna know. I think that's what he meant by the Terran race feeling more complete (both him and Browder have stated this), and that because of this the other two races need more design work. They (theoretically) struggle with "board control", where Protoss has warp-in and Sentries and Zerg has speed and Burrowed banelings, Terrans are missing Spider mines, which is where the Shredder is supposed to come in to play. Protoss were struggling with being more turtley/all-iny (no back and forth games, either deathball or X-gate all-in design), so the Nexus recall, Oracle and building -> cannon ability were invented to help Protoss engage in more back and forth games. Zerg struggles with assaulting fortified positions, so they are given the Locust-building thing. Burrowed baneling movement, for the lulz, don't think that will make it through, and Ultra charge. Blizzard's balance/design team has thought about this and all the races are theoretically intended to be changed to prevent their weaknesses from being too big. TLDR; it isn't that Terran has too few weaknesses, it's that the other races have too many. HotS is meant to fix that. On December 20 2011 06:47 SiaBBo wrote: You're not trolling? Ever seen Terran doing some multitasking; constant drops, splitting units, targeting Colossus, EMP, build units (cuz when playing Terran you actually have to make them during the battle.) And ofcourse you do that all at the same time.. That's not what he meant at all. | ||
|
BlazeTSR
United States218 Posts
The energy upgrades are so/so with me due to joining the sc2 community after they removed amulet. I play toss but i agree the energy HTs have is fine any way. Terran have hellion openings and reaper openings which do fine against all races currently. The speed would just create issues of instability that the blue flame hellions had created. | ||
|
Elefanto
Switzerland3584 Posts
On December 20 2011 06:51 SeaSwift wrote: I think that's what he meant by the Terran race feeling more complete (both him and Browder have stated this), and that because of this the other two races need more design work. They (theoretically) struggle with "board control", where Protoss has warp-in and Sentries and Zerg has speed and Burrowed banelings, Terrans are missing Spider mines, which is where the Shredder is supposed to come in to play. You're not trolling? Ever seen Terran doing some multitasking; constant drops, splitting units, targeting Colossus, EMP, build units (cuz when playing Terran you actually have to make them during the battle.) And ofcourse you do that all at the same time.. They have siege tanks, it's the best board control in the game lol | ||
|
architecture
United States643 Posts
Worst production Worst unpositioned 200 army These problems are compensated by a top terran that abuses position in both matchups, and constantly attacks, abusing MULEs and compressed tech tree, so that the other races are unable to fully exercise a late game production advantage. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
It also makes 1 Rax FE give more economy than 15CC which makes no sense at all from a risk/reward point of view. All of ZvT and TvP problems stem from the early game mule. | ||
|
Promethium
Australia32 Posts
| ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
On December 20 2011 03:25 SeaSwift wrote: Neither Huk, Idra nor Whitera ever "stomped", or even beat a GSL winner in MLG, unless you count Huk in a PvP. Using that "evidence" to say that "tournament results have no impact therefore Protoss is fine in Code S GSL" is ridiculous. I'm not saying that Protoss is doing bad, just that your assertions here are ignorant. Koreans obv beat foreigners more than foreigners beat them, but as it stands that's because Koreans are simply better players than foreigners because of how they practice. Have you ever wondered why Terran is so prominent in korea yet outside of korea it's actually underrepresented? It's ONLY in korea What do tournaments have to do with balance when it's the players' preference to what race they play? A tournament is also a completely different setting from over all balance because the tournament itself is a new game (many outside factors contribute that have nothing to do with the game being played). I'm going to throw out there that maybe it's people preferring to play a more dynamic race instead of one that is brain dead a move? | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
| ||
|
TerranMeApart
United States27 Posts
| ||
|
StrafeJD
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
AndAgain
United States2621 Posts
The thing that I don't like about it is the SCV-pull strategies that it creates. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On the mule question he basically said -Yea, we get a lot of feedback from the community about mules being OP -Progamers say that mules are too strong, too -the GSL removed gold patches because of mules being too strong ....but we're not certain if there's a problem ...wait what? | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On December 21 2011 10:34 AndAgain wrote: Blizzard's design idea is that, the less mobile the race, the least you should have to expand. That's why they put the mule in. The thing that I don't like about it is the SCV-pull strategies that it creates. There's also the design flaw that Terran is far from being the least mobile race. So the whole idea kind of falls down straight away. | ||
|
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:01 neoghaleon55 wrote: I really don't understand David Kim sometimes and his half dead answers. On the mule question he basically said -Yea, we get a lot of feedback from the community about mules being OP -Progamers say that mules are too strong, too -the GSL removed gold patches because of mules being too strong ....but we're not certain if there's a problem ...wait what? That's not what he said... he said that certain progamers thought the mules are too strong, specifically on gold bases. BUT because in tournaments that still have gold bases and have the same amount of P, T and Z representation it doesn't seem to matter and it's balanaced. The GSL removed gold patches because terrans in korea are really good. He basically said GSL terran players are better then their Z en P counterparts and removing the mule gold bases balances that a bit. On January 05 2012 08:03 SeaSwift wrote: There's also the design flaw that Terran is far from being the least mobile race. So the whole idea kind of falls down straight away. The only way for terran to all in is by pulling their SCV's because there is no other way to jump ahead in production. So if we nerf the mule because of SCV pulling strategies you should also nerf larva inject because of how it allows to just have a shit ton of units whenever you want and we should remove warpgates because units can be instantly on the other side of the map. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
What should be looked into is the overall fairness of the game. How many times in the GSL have we seen Terrans losing 80% of their worker force and is still on equal or greater economy than their counterparts? In response, the GSL removed gold bases, something that is needed for the integrity of the game. You only need to look to yesterday's AoL MarineKing vs DRG game 4 to see that the removal of gold mineral muling significantly makes the game more fair. Had the center bases been gold patches, MKP's mule dropping off 5 orbitals would have probably won him the game, regardless that he lost the majority of his scvs. | ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
On January 05 2012 08:14 neoghaleon55 wrote: But tournament racial representation alone does not determine balance. What should be looked into is the overall fairness of the game. How many times in the GSL have we seen Terrans losing 80% of their worker force and is still on equal or greater economy than their counterparts? In response, the GSL removed gold bases, something that is needed for the integrity of the game. You only need to look to yesterday's AoL MarineKing vs DRG game 4 to see that the removal of gold mineral muling significantly makes the game more fair. Had the center bases been gold patches, MKP's mule dropping off 5 orbitals would have probably won him the game, regardless that he lost the majority of his scvs. The Gold bases were an interesting idea, but they just can't be balanced, especially when some races can hold the open gold positions easier than others. Antiga minus the gold patches is one of the best maps out there; it even has great destructable rock usage. | ||
| ||
