|
On March 27 2012 13:35 Sajaki wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 13:18 plogamer wrote:
Terran aoe is lacking and easily countered late game. In late game, when armies tends to be huge and clumped, aoe becomes exponentially more powerful. Zergs have Fungals, Toss have Collosi/Storm. Terrans have nothing viable.
Seige tanks are neutered by Broodlords. Seige tanks also do terrible against Chargelots/Blinkstalkers. The range/damage/cost on Seeker Missile from Ravens is pathetic, not to mention slow to launch.
Oh, Fungals and Collosi splash don't do friendlyfire damage. GG :S You are forgetting EMP which is pretty damn huge. And HSM (vs Zerg) does an INSANE amount of damage behind a strong mech army. I think that what T needs most lategame is to have EMP radius rebuffed (if we talk about balance changes) and Thor energy removed (along with that useless strike cannon).
EMP damage is capped by shield - not the case for the other spells. This makes it 50% effective versus Chargelots (100hp, 50 shield). And guess what most Terrans have trouble dealing with? Chargelots.
HSM range is 6 - compare that to other spells.
HSM radius is like that of a Seigetank - compare that to the other spells. Source Image
The tech to HSM is also difficult. Two upgrades on a unit that is already cost-heavy on gas. And you mentioned a mech army - which is already draining a lot of gas. May not be a huge issue late game, but still important to consider when it gives a largely inferior spell as a reward for all that effort.
|
This makes it 50% effective versus Chargelots (100hp, 50 shield).
I think you mean 33%, because 50/150 total HP is 1/3, or 33%. Unless you count shield upgrades: armor upgrades....?
To the Protoss telling us to switch army compositions because "MMM is so standard since beta": make carriers viable in the matchup, and let's talk again.
|
On March 27 2012 13:48 Cyclone999 wrote:I think you mean 33%, because 50/150 total HP is 1/3, or 33%. Unless you count shield upgrades: armor upgrades....? To the Protoss telling us to switch army compositions because "MMM is so standard since beta": make carriers viable in the matchup, and let's talk again.
EMP deals 100 damage to shield. 50 shield means the rest is dud. That's how I calculated it. But you're right, its even more accurate to say it deals 33% effective damage versus Zealots.
|
HSM needs a range buff.
Terran has no real AOE damage like storm or fungal in the late game.
|
Every time this thread is bumped:
Where did all the Terrans go? ♬
♬ Long time passing
Where did all the Terrans go? ♬
♬ Long time ago
Where have all the Terrans go? ♬
♬ Blizzard has nerfed them every one
When will they ever learn? ♬
When will they ever learn? ♬
|
On March 27 2012 13:44 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 13:35 Sajaki wrote:On March 27 2012 13:18 plogamer wrote:
Terran aoe is lacking and easily countered late game. In late game, when armies tends to be huge and clumped, aoe becomes exponentially more powerful. Zergs have Fungals, Toss have Collosi/Storm. Terrans have nothing viable.
Seige tanks are neutered by Broodlords. Seige tanks also do terrible against Chargelots/Blinkstalkers. The range/damage/cost on Seeker Missile from Ravens is pathetic, not to mention slow to launch.
Oh, Fungals and Collosi splash don't do friendlyfire damage. GG :S You are forgetting EMP which is pretty damn huge. And HSM (vs Zerg) does an INSANE amount of damage behind a strong mech army. I think that what T needs most lategame is to have EMP radius rebuffed (if we talk about balance changes) and Thor energy removed (along with that useless strike cannon). EMP radius is tiny compared to both Storm and Fungals, which you did mention. EMP damage is capped by shield - not the case for the other spells. This makes it 50% effective versus Chargelots (100hp, 50 shield). And guess what most Terrans have trouble dealing with? Chargelots. HSM range is 6 - compare that to other spells. HSM radius is like that of a Seigetank - compare that to the other spells. Source ImageThe tech to HSM is also difficult. Two upgrades on a unit that is already cost-heavy on gas. And you mentioned a mech army - which is already draining a lot of gas. May not be a huge issue late game, but still important to consider when it gives a largely inferior spell as a reward for all that effort.
wtf are you talking about? EMP is tiny compared to Storm/Fungal? EMP has the exact same radius as storm, and is slightly smaller than Fungal.
|
On March 27 2012 14:04 Zzoram wrote:
HSM needs a range buff.
Terran has no real AOE damage like storm or fungal in the late game.
Yep. That's the reason they nerfed the Ghost. They don't want Ghost to be the good-versus-everything caster like infestor/ht . They intend Raven to be the infestor/HT equivalent for Terran, but they don't realize that Raven is not currently viable because its AOE spell is garbage.
|
Well add one to the ladder pool...I'm switching to Terran from Protoss! :D
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 27 2012 14:11 xHPx_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 13:44 plogamer wrote:On March 27 2012 13:35 Sajaki wrote:On March 27 2012 13:18 plogamer wrote:
Terran aoe is lacking and easily countered late game. In late game, when armies tends to be huge and clumped, aoe becomes exponentially more powerful. Zergs have Fungals, Toss have Collosi/Storm. Terrans have nothing viable.
Seige tanks are neutered by Broodlords. Seige tanks also do terrible against Chargelots/Blinkstalkers. The range/damage/cost on Seeker Missile from Ravens is pathetic, not to mention slow to launch.
Oh, Fungals and Collosi splash don't do friendlyfire damage. GG :S You are forgetting EMP which is pretty damn huge. And HSM (vs Zerg) does an INSANE amount of damage behind a strong mech army. I think that what T needs most lategame is to have EMP radius rebuffed (if we talk about balance changes) and Thor energy removed (along with that useless strike cannon). EMP radius is tiny compared to both Storm and Fungals, which you did mention. EMP damage is capped by shield - not the case for the other spells. This makes it 50% effective versus Chargelots (100hp, 50 shield). And guess what most Terrans have trouble dealing with? Chargelots. HSM range is 6 - compare that to other spells. HSM radius is like that of a Seigetank - compare that to the other spells. Source ImageThe tech to HSM is also difficult. Two upgrades on a unit that is already cost-heavy on gas. And you mentioned a mech army - which is already draining a lot of gas. May not be a huge issue late game, but still important to consider when it gives a largely inferior spell as a reward for all that effort. wtf are you talking about? EMP is tiny compared to Storm/Fungal? EMP has the exact same radius as storm, and is slightly smaller than Fungal.
Thanks for the info, I double checked liquipedia and confirmed that EMP has the same radius as Psionic Storm. I'll edit it out, but the rest of my point stands.
|
|
|
United States13143 Posts
Also Seeker Missiles only deal full damage to a couple of units, and most of the units in the radius take either 50% or 25% damage.
|
Please stop to argue balance with just single games, it not really helps.
Terran will simply always the hardest (lategame) race, because they have the weakest lategame macro mechanic. Live with it. Personally i play Mech in TvP because a lot of master P´s are on platinum level in defending against banshee harras and 7 of 10 Protosses are just complettly missreading the difference between 111 and mech play.
Blizzard will not help us because of the koreans, and they have to make huge changes in the macro mechanics to give Terran a equal lategame chance.
What Blizzard could do is to allow quing up units if the supply cap is reached. This would help a little bit because the average joe cant micro mmm and build an army at the same time.
|
Regardless of weakest late game macro, it would be nice if Blizzard buffed HSM even slightly.
|
another problem i see with HSM is that its a unit target spell where as fungal and storm aren't. That limits a lot of versatility HSM has. You can't preemptively fire off HSMs in strategic locations to zone opponents, units can easily run away from it without taking ANY dmg (where as it is nearly impossible to run from a storm with 0 dmg and impossible to run from a fungal, you have to choose carefully what you HSM (if you accidentally click on a ling or chargelot running towards your army then you effectively just HSMed your own army).
I dont think blizzard intended HSM to be the race equivalent to storm and fungal, i really think they just put that in the game as a "fun" spell, much like how the mothership was intended for in the beginning.
|
HSM doing friendly fire is pretty annoying too.
|
On March 27 2012 13:54 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 13:48 Cyclone999 wrote:This makes it 50% effective versus Chargelots (100hp, 50 shield). I think you mean 33%, because 50/150 total HP is 1/3, or 33%. Unless you count shield upgrades: armor upgrades....? To the Protoss telling us to switch army compositions because "MMM is so standard since beta": make carriers viable in the matchup, and let's talk again. EMP deals 100 damage to shield. 50 shield means the rest is dud. That's how I calculated it. But you're right, its even more accurate to say it deals 33% effective damage versus Zealots.
You mean it's even more Terran biased. Your calculation method was right to begin with. EMP can deal at most 100 damage, it can only deal 50 at most to a zealot, hence 50% effective. On immortals, EMP is 100% effective.
|
On March 27 2012 09:34 jax1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 08:50 LavaLava wrote:On March 27 2012 08:48 malaan wrote:
This thread is seriously starting to stagnate from stupid fucking shit.
Why is the thread going on for 150 pages with people retyping the same thing?
Terran is doing badly because it requires uber multi tasking which is harder at lower levels of play. People got bored and switched race. The end!
How about, lets' try to figure out what specific things are to blame, if anything should be done about it, what can be done about it, and how to go about changing whatever needs changing. Then the end. What needs to be changed make vikings deal double dmg? if a terran scouts broodlords and have viking produktion he can rape that army with easy we have seen that already. The problem is the tech switch, sometimes when zerg gets that army they cant switch again to ultras becouse it cost so much gas. if they cant, zerg looses. on antiga shipyard terran should be better off late game because the zerg should not be able get a 4th. the terran just drops the zerg to death or cut him off ? This is pro level play but thats whats important anyways.
Actually that's not true. Even if a terren scouts broodlords and produces a dozen of vikings, that airforce is super vulnerable against fungals. Two or three funals and all the vikings will be dead.
|
On March 27 2012 11:55 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On March 27 2012 09:45 Kharnage wrote:On March 27 2012 09:21 DemigodcelpH wrote:On March 27 2012 08:28 whoopadeedoo wrote:On March 27 2012 08:21 Chaggi wrote:On March 27 2012 08:05 whoopadeedoo wrote:On March 27 2012 07:56 FreddYCooL wrote:
Whats the point of arguing the mechanics? I think we can safely say the mechanically there is no harder race. What the terrans are complaining about is the lack of good and solid T3 units that can complement our armies in the late game. In TvP bio is so flimsy that after a victory you can hardly ever push as bio lacks the strength to beat the rewarped zealots. This meaning that lots of terran die directly after their first army was lost and then have to gg with several thousand minerals and gas stockpiled but unable to use while the protoss can lose several big engagements and still end up fine.
In TvZ the broodlord/infestor is very very hard to beat especially as the zerg quickly can do tech switches to ultras and back to broodlords again. We're arguing mechanics because a group of Terrans are trying to tell everyone it's harder to play their race. I agree it has nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with a viable T3 unit. I agree the ghost snipe nerf was horrible for TvZ (right idea to nerf snipe against Z T3, totally wrong way to go about it). The fact that we can't lose an army late game - especially close to our base because our reinforcement abilities are so slow. Even if I have a lot of Rax's, a protoss can instantly warp in and I'll just die. Even Zerg larva mechanic is forgiving at a late game stage cause you can instantly remax, but at least the units have to run across. I get what you're saying. This is really only a problem in full 200/200 engagements where one side wins convincining (and yeah, that adds to terran's TvP difficulties late game). Part of me wants to say that it is offset by the fact that Terran army heals quickly and is highly mobile, whereas if you're Toss, once you engage you better be sure you're winning or doing equal damage in that engagement. Or else Toss dies. Terran can retreat. Toss is pretty much the only race that nothing except phoenixes, blink stalkers, and speed prisms can retreat without heavy losses. Different races are different. Different doesn't mean balanced. One race can still be more demanding. I just wanted to point out your faulty approach of "its supposed to be different" = "all is fine". Difference is good of course, as no one wants a three copies of the same race, but implying "it's different must be working as intended" sounds like wishful thinking to hide darker secrets. Additionally the Protoss army is actually more mobile than the Terran army as a whole (both races have "dropships", but stalkers can teleport, collosus can cliff travel, zealots have an insta-gap closer and Protoss has warp while marines/mauraders just have stim for movement speed), so Terran's late game macro disadvantage is not offset by that. The reason the bio-army is considered more mobile is that 2 dropships full of units isn't massively detrimental to the bio-ball army but is very capable of doing a lot of damage to the protoss infrastructure. It's common knowledge to just go kill the Terran when he's doing cute drop play after his drops die to static defense and warp-ins. This depends on the scale of the drop losses. 2 drop ships + men isn't enough to put a terran in such a position that they can't hold if they fight near a PF.
That's the point exactly. Because it IS a problem if the do NOT fight at a PF. Guess what - planetary fortresses aren't a very common terrain feature. Especially as on most maps protoss can walk straight into your natural where there will be an orbital.
On March 27 2012 13:27 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:51 Granter wrote:
I really like tvp but lately i never really win.
I have major problems against toss who just masses up any kind of combination of army, lots of zealots/archons(high templars with storms) and colousses, just all the units. Feels like my t1 marine/marauder ball is eaten like a cake even with 3/3 upgrades against even a smaller TOS army when he doesnt do anything els but A move and controll his templars to storm me.
This is very stressfull cause i have to kite with my army + controll ghosts/vikings, in other words i have to pull off insane macro. Tho i'm improving!, i just have to find a way to get my ghosts around his army to emp the templars without getting feedbacked to death, this is the main issue i have atm.
I have looked on way better terrans then me like empireKas and Dragons stream but honestly they pretty much had the exact same problem i had, only that they managed it slightly better, consider that they controll there units perfectly, tho still dies.
If i got to change the TOS army i would make templars unable turn into an archon if they dont have something like 75energy, this would make it fair and not so forgiving to just derp around with the templars to then after having them turned into the games strongest anti bio unit.
But i really hope Warhounds make mech more interesting against TOS in heart of the swarm because having to play bio all the time is boring D: if you're getting feedbacked that just means you haven't been sniping obs and/or you aren't getting cloak.
Awesome.. By that logic storm is unbeatable, because if you get your HT emp'ed or sniped that just means that you failed at positioning and at guarding them.
|
Personally as a terran player, I find it not really helpful to act like HSM isn't very strong. It slaughters shit, but the problem is simply the production of ravens. To have a meaningful army of ravens, you need like 5x tech lab'd ports, along with upgrading 2(preferably 3) upgrades and waiting for 1.5 minutes for them to become combat ready. The reward might be very great(I mean HSM is insanely strong in lategame), but if you just get killed before it happens, what's the point? They need to make it less energy and less dmg(and pref have raven like NP immune :/)
|
Awesome.. By that logic storm is unbeatable, because if you get your HT emp'ed or sniped that just means that you failed at positioning and at guarding them.
Well yes, kinda. If both players play perfectly in a PvT, you shouldn't be able to engage ever, because the spellcasters are crucial on both sides but you have tools to negate them quite well in both camps.
The point is that someone will make a mistake, and the other will just roll over him as a consequence :D
Maybe it's easier for one race or the other to make that mistake, I don't know, but lategame PvT battles should be a stalemate imo.
What's obvious however, is that if Terran wins the battle by not enough of a margin, they can't push because of massive warpins, whereas if Protoss wins the battle ever so slightly, they can finish off Terran quite easily, with warpins as well. I think this is the problem most Terrans have lategame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
