|
On April 13 2012 08:22 entrust wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 07:55 HeyJude wrote:On April 13 2012 07:32 KULA_u wrote:
sounds like one step forward and two steps backwards. they saw that some things are stupid but in the end they still follow the same, bad design ideas. (long range missles for terran to combat tanks? really? the players should find out a way to deal with that, not blizzard. and a protoss siege air units... oh wait, don't we already have the carrier? spider mines in the air? that's like giving terran ridiculously overpowered Scourge that would just outright kill all investment into mutas...)
Blizzard, replace your designers with people who actually have a clue. or at least bring in some people from the community to comment ond your stuff... there are so many things that are so fundamentally and obviously stupid with sc2 design that it is just sad... The same bad design ideas that make SC2 continue to be one of the most popular e-sports? Some of the criticism of Blizzard in this thread just amazes me. Don't get me wrong, they aren't perfect, but saying "replace your designers with people who actually have a clue" is a stupid comment showing that you don't have a clue. There's no perfect medium that would satisfy everyone. I completely agree with KULA. SC2 continues to be one of the most popular esports because there is no competition. I can understand that people are worried about what is happening to their game, especially when you consider the great predecessor they did. There are high expectations for this game which are not met. On the bright side - there is no better RTS right now than SC2, but that doesn't mean it's perfect, because for me like for many other people it seems they are doing things wrong. Everybody hoped they are going to repair their errors in HotS, but now we see that they disappointed big part of community. TBH I'd happily stop playing SC2 if there was better alternative. I think Host Swarm, Tempest and this rocket launcher are fail ideas.
I don't understand all this negativity all the time either.
There have been plenty of RTS games but none of them holds a candle to sc2. If they were anything like sc2, they'd still be around, but there are not, because sc2 is simply the best.
This blog sounds amazing. It tells me they really know what they are doing and that they keep on going until things are as close to perfect as possible. These changes are all steps in the right direction and if the new ideas turn out to be bad, you can bet your ass they aren't included in HotS.
|
another 10 years, just for the next expansion
|
I think I would be okay without the expansion.
|
On April 13 2012 06:37 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:14 Azarkon wrote:Protoss changes are horrid. Replicant removed - okay, but no unit to replace this? Tempest as air siege unit - why did you remove the carrier just to replace it with another unit that does the exact same thing? Mothership is still gone, giving Protoss no options late game vs. infestor + broodlord + viper armies. Oracle has no combat utility in army vs. army battles. Void ray still lacks purpose aside from gimmicky void ray rush builds. Protoss air still has no answer to corrupters and vikings. This is a disaster  If we assume Protoss can get to a point where they can use air + another tech tree, Templars can be quite good at evening that divide. Just like now, it's very hard to win as late game Protoss without using 2 tech trees effectively. Also, carriers were just bad, seeing that the interceptors couldn't acquire new targets automatically and carriers became more vulnerable than naked broodlords.
Changing it to a Tempest doesn't really fix much, particularly when the Carrier has had a total of 0 tweaks since the beta. Carriers are more nostalgic than the Tempest and are meant to serve that role of being a siege unit. Too bad it just sucks. Still no real excuse to introduce another air siege unit which can hit both air and ground units when you can try to fix carriers.
You can still keep the Tempest, just change its function. While thinking about it, I realized there was one suggestion back when the Tempest silhoutte was shown about a melee flying unit, and I figured that's not really such a bad idea if you can make it tanky to protect carriers from Corruptors or as a direct counter to Brood Lords. Perhaps make it immune vs Fungal Growth or something. Just throwing out some alternative suggestions which I feel make it more interesting than just replacing the Carrier outright.
|
On April 13 2012 08:29 Gfire wrote:
Maybe if the carrier had that shield ability to protect it against ground, but maybe phoenixes were buffed vs non-light air units (vikings and corruptors,) so they could be used together to make a strong composition, supported by stalkers or whatever.
A colossus nerf would help the carrier, as well. I kinda want the colossus to fire at the point of the target and not move it's beams if the unit moves, so it could be more dodgeable, sort of like the lurker. This would add more micro. You could also give it an attack ground ability so it can be used more effectively as well, and maybe used to control space a little bit.
Psuedo-balance whine? No one has a problem with colossus balance. People just think it's a poorly designed unit. Not that it's overpowered. Your probably just losing to it because you aren't building enough Vikings or corruptors and/or A-moving your army into the deathball and expecting everything to not get vaporized.
Also how would a colossus nerf HELP the carrier. You mean it might see more use if the colossus gets nerfed? That's not the same thing, and also it's not true. Because you still need to tech to robo most games and going from robo to fleet beacon isnt very convenient. People would still build colossi because first of all, it's viable (while carriers is not in high level play). Second of all, like I pointed out you still need a robo so it's more convenient. And third of all. You aren't spending a retarded amount on interceptors (and air upgrades that are needed for carriers as 1 upgrade is +16 damage.) and any defense upgrades the opponent has is -16 damage. And they will have the upgrade advantage for sure by the time you start getting air upgrades.
Your reasoning is totally flawed and really all your saying is that you aren't good at playing against colossi so you want them nerfed. No pro's have any problems with colossi except what I pointed out above, that it's a poorly designed unit, not an imbalances unit.
|
On April 13 2012 08:49 Berailfor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 08:29 Gfire wrote:
Maybe if the carrier had that shield ability to protect it against ground, but maybe phoenixes were buffed vs non-light air units (vikings and corruptors,) so they could be used together to make a strong composition, supported by stalkers or whatever.
A colossus nerf would help the carrier, as well. I kinda want the colossus to fire at the point of the target and not move it's beams if the unit moves, so it could be more dodgeable, sort of like the lurker. This would add more micro. You could also give it an attack ground ability so it can be used more effectively as well, and maybe used to control space a little bit. Psuedo-balance whine? No one has a problem with colossus balance. People just think it's a poorly designed unit. Not that it's overpowered. Your probably just losing to it because you aren't building enough Vikings or corruptors and/or A-moving your army into the deathball and expecting everything to not get vaporized. Also how would a colossus nerf HELP the carrier. You mean it might see more use if the colossus gets nerfed? That's not the same thing, and also it's not true. Because you still need to tech to robo most games and going from robo to fleet beacon isnt very convenient. People would still build colossi because first of all, it's viable (while carriers is not in high level play). Second of all, like I pointed out you still need a robo so it's more convenient. And third of all. You aren't spending a retarded amount on interceptors (and air upgrades that are needed for carriers as 1 upgrade is +16 damage.) and any defense upgrades the opponent has is -16 damage. And they will have the upgrade advantage for sure by the time you start getting air upgrades. Your reasoning is totally flawed and really all your saying is that you aren't good at playing against colossi so you want them nerfed. No pro's have any problems with colossi except what I pointed out above, that it's a poorly designed unit, not an imbalances unit.
Don't know how you could jump to the conclusion that he's whining against Colossus's imbalance. All I see in his post are ways of making the Colossus unit more fun to play/watch (by nerfing it a little bit to make it more microable rather than a-move then micro backwards). Not that I agree with his idea. But I don't see how you could jump to the conclusion that it's a balance whine.
|
I'm so glad the shredder and the replicant are gone.
As a protoss, I'm much happier with the tempest now, but at the same time it seems like they're trying to make it do what the carrier should do anyway. Why not just actually attempt to fix the carrier?
Got to say, I'm really not a fan of a disruption web that sticks to my units. I'm also pretty disappointed the viper's chameleon-tongue thing is still around.
|
4713 Posts
I don't see the need to shoot down his argument as a balance whine. It is a known fact that Colossus and Carriers share one very big weakness in the form of Vikings. They also share similar functionality and strengths. The colossus can be a siege unit, but it is rarely used as such because of its massive splash and great DPS, the carrier doesn't aoe, so its mostly a siege unit or a good sniper against expensive high HP units.
They both have great mobility, Colossus can walk up and down cliffs and over units, the carrier can fly.
Both units are indeed very different, but the similarities in both mobility and weakness make Colossus a better choice because of its aoe. Lastly Colossus is part of a tech path that gets both detection and benefits from forge upgrades, stargate play gets neither.
As long as terran play bio, carriers won't be viable, because they get hard countered by both vikings, and marines the most common terran unit, while Colossus gets only countered by vikings. Carrier would be most viable against mech and with Blizzard looking to make mech viable in HoTS it would be perfect for the carrier to make a comeback there. Even so the carrier still would require a lots of changes to make it work, changes to its interceptor AI, costs, survivability, and build time.
|
On April 13 2012 08:48 pdd wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:37 aksfjh wrote:On April 13 2012 06:14 Azarkon wrote:Protoss changes are horrid. Replicant removed - okay, but no unit to replace this? Tempest as air siege unit - why did you remove the carrier just to replace it with another unit that does the exact same thing? Mothership is still gone, giving Protoss no options late game vs. infestor + broodlord + viper armies. Oracle has no combat utility in army vs. army battles. Void ray still lacks purpose aside from gimmicky void ray rush builds. Protoss air still has no answer to corrupters and vikings. This is a disaster If we assume Protoss can get to a point where they can use air + another tech tree, Templars can be quite good at evening that divide. Just like now, it's very hard to win as late game Protoss without using 2 tech trees effectively. Also, carriers were just bad, seeing that the interceptors couldn't acquire new targets automatically and carriers became more vulnerable than naked broodlords. Changing it to a Tempest doesn't really fix much, particularly when the Carrier has had a total of 0 tweaks since the beta. Carriers are more nostalgic than the Tempest and are meant to serve that role of being a siege unit. Too bad it just sucks. Still no real excuse to introduce another air siege unit which can hit both air and ground units when you can try to fix carriers. You can still keep the Tempest, just change its function. While thinking about it, I realized there was one suggestion back when the Tempest silhoutte was shown about a melee flying unit, and I figured that's not really such a bad idea if you can make it tanky to protect carriers from Corruptors or as a direct counter to Brood Lords. Perhaps make it immune vs Fungal Growth or something. Just throwing out some alternative suggestions which I feel make it more interesting than just replacing the Carrier outright.
Like somebody else said, the tweaks required would be more akin to a redesign. The interceptor firing mechanic alone would have to be reworked since the high volume low damage package doesn't work outside of marines apparently.
|
On April 13 2012 08:49 Berailfor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 08:29 Gfire wrote:
Maybe if the carrier had that shield ability to protect it against ground, but maybe phoenixes were buffed vs non-light air units (vikings and corruptors,) so they could be used together to make a strong composition, supported by stalkers or whatever.
A colossus nerf would help the carrier, as well. I kinda want the colossus to fire at the point of the target and not move it's beams if the unit moves, so it could be more dodgeable, sort of like the lurker. This would add more micro. You could also give it an attack ground ability so it can be used more effectively as well, and maybe used to control space a little bit. Psuedo-balance whine? No one has a problem with colossus balance. People just think it's a poorly designed unit. Not that it's overpowered. Your probably just losing to it because you aren't building enough Vikings or corruptors and/or A-moving your army into the deathball and expecting everything to not get vaporized. Also how would a colossus nerf HELP the carrier. You mean it might see more use if the colossus gets nerfed? That's not the same thing, and also it's not true. Because you still need to tech to robo most games and going from robo to fleet beacon isnt very convenient. People would still build colossi because first of all, it's viable (while carriers is not in high level play). Second of all, like I pointed out you still need a robo so it's more convenient. And third of all. You aren't spending a retarded amount on interceptors (and air upgrades that are needed for carriers as 1 upgrade is +16 damage.) and any defense upgrades the opponent has is -16 damage. And they will have the upgrade advantage for sure by the time you start getting air upgrades. Your reasoning is totally flawed and really all your saying is that you aren't good at playing against colossi so you want them nerfed. No pro's have any problems with colossi except what I pointed out above, that it's a poorly designed unit, not an imbalances unit.
but he's right, as you pointed out, building the colossus is much more convenient and has the same counter, meaning that the colossus outclasses the carrier. buffing the carrier alone wont do the job alone, except if it was buffed enough to outclass the carrier, which wouldnt be better.
so the solution to make air-based armies viable would be something like making the colossus not attackable by vikings, and corruptors, making it cheaper and weaker, like the reaver while at the same time buffing the carrier.
On April 13 2012 08:29 Cereb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 08:22 entrust wrote:On April 13 2012 07:55 HeyJude wrote:On April 13 2012 07:32 KULA_u wrote:
sounds like one step forward and two steps backwards. they saw that some things are stupid but in the end they still follow the same, bad design ideas. (long range missles for terran to combat tanks? really? the players should find out a way to deal with that, not blizzard. and a protoss siege air units... oh wait, don't we already have the carrier? spider mines in the air? that's like giving terran ridiculously overpowered Scourge that would just outright kill all investment into mutas...)
Blizzard, replace your designers with people who actually have a clue. or at least bring in some people from the community to comment ond your stuff... there are so many things that are so fundamentally and obviously stupid with sc2 design that it is just sad... The same bad design ideas that make SC2 continue to be one of the most popular e-sports? Some of the criticism of Blizzard in this thread just amazes me. Don't get me wrong, they aren't perfect, but saying "replace your designers with people who actually have a clue" is a stupid comment showing that you don't have a clue. There's no perfect medium that would satisfy everyone. I completely agree with KULA. SC2 continues to be one of the most popular esports because there is no competition. I can understand that people are worried about what is happening to their game, especially when you consider the great predecessor they did. There are high expectations for this game which are not met. On the bright side - there is no better RTS right now than SC2, but that doesn't mean it's perfect, because for me like for many other people it seems they are doing things wrong. Everybody hoped they are going to repair their errors in HotS, but now we see that they disappointed big part of community. TBH I'd happily stop playing SC2 if there was better alternative. I think Host Swarm, Tempest and this rocket launcher are fail ideas. I don't understand all this negativity all the time either. There have been plenty of RTS games but none of them holds a candle to sc2. If they were anything like sc2, they'd still be around, but there are not, because sc2 is simply the best. This blog sounds amazing. It tells me they really know what they are doing and that they keep on going until things are as close to perfect as possible. These changes are all steps in the right direction and if the new ideas turn out to be bad, you can bet your ass they aren't included in HotS.
yes, in a way it shows that they hear at the community wishes and develop the game in these directions, which is great.
but while starcraft 2 is great in terms of e-sport, balance, possibilities, micro, macro,... it is far from perfect in terms of atmosphere and unit-design. marines are the jacks of all trades, marauder and immortals counter way to hard, vikings are incarnated air superiority against everything except mutas, stalker are a harass-unit with low dps (wtf), corruptors and overseer have useless abilities, and every unit has no ability that would ever change it's playstyle (except for the siege tank).
to give a good example for what i mean: e.g. warcraft 3 had a pretty good unit design and atmosphere, but sadly was way inferior in terms of game design. the whole dow-series has a way better atmosphere and is better in terms of unit design, but also way inferior game-wise.
|
On April 13 2012 08:01 Berailfor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 06:37 NEOtheONE wrote:The tempest is currently a very long-ranged aerial siege weapon that can strike both air and ground targets. This gives the protoss army some real reach to force an engagement on their terms in the end-game.
So let me get this straight, the Tempest is now essentially the Carrier version 2.0? You remove the carrier to replace it with another carrier. *facepalm* The carrier builds interceptors, sucks without high air attack upgrades, and does not have long range. The tempest won't need to spend a ton of extra minerals to gain (and upkeep) full DPS, won't require as much of an upgrade advantage as carriers needed because no interceptors, will have longer range (at least long enough to abuse cliffs like broodlords do) and don't need major scripting/design changes like the carrier would need if it were to ever be effective (they can start from scratch with a cool new unit)
So what you're saying is that we have a carrier which interceptors can't be killed. We really need a new unit for that?
|
On April 13 2012 08:29 Cereb wrote:
There have been plenty of RTS games but none of them holds a candle to sc2. If they were anything like sc2, they'd still be around, but there are not, because sc2 is simply the best.
These changes are all steps in the right direction and if the new ideas turn out to be bad, you can bet your ass they aren't included in HotS.
1 - Watch a Brood War ProLeague or OSL finals and then tell me SC2 is the best RTS in esports.
2 - But if you're a designer, you DON'T SHOW the bad ideas, you keep those to yourself. The fact they they are sharing bad ideas means they don't realize they are bad, and are thus bad designers. Any good designer can tell a bad designer, no matter what field of design it is. Browder does not get it. Sometimes he talks like he does and uses jargon to appease us, but his actions speak louder than his words.
|
Does anyone think that Blizzard should infact make corrupters a unit thats morphed from a mutalisk and in turn make mutalisks also have the ability to be morphed to a broodlord? Making both units a T3 Z air unit from the greater spire?
We all know how devestating the broodlord/corrupter + infestor composition is and the difficulty in dealing with this. By undergoing the change above, the composition would be more likely broodlord/mutalisk + infestors unless the Z player dedicates his resources into making corrupters. So in a sense its nerfing that composition without touching the unit stats themselves (maybe a slight readjustment of the corrupter stats) but also it would be much resource intensive to reach broodlord/corrupter + infestor comp.
|
On April 13 2012 09:07 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 08:29 Cereb wrote:
There have been plenty of RTS games but none of them holds a candle to sc2. If they were anything like sc2, they'd still be around, but there are not, because sc2 is simply the best.
These changes are all steps in the right direction and if the new ideas turn out to be bad, you can bet your ass they aren't included in HotS. 1 - Watch a Brood War ProLeague or OSL finals and then tell me SC2 is the best RTS in esports. 2 - But if you're a designer, you DON'T SHOW the bad ideas, you keep those to yourself. The fact they they are sharing bad ideas means they don't realize they are bad, and are thus bad designers. Any good designer can tell a bad designer, no matter what field of design it is. Browder does not get it. Sometimes he talks like he does and uses jargon to appease us, but his actions speak louder than his words.
"Hey guys! If you have ideas for a game, don't express them unless they're AAA+ ideas. That's how people come up with all the best ideas!"
It's not even beta yet. They're letting us into their design process and sharing their ideas so that we can voice our opinions. I guarantee they're not doing it as a, "Look at us! We're perfect and so are our ideas!"
|
On April 13 2012 09:22 YyapSsap wrote:
Does anyone think that Blizzard should infact make corrupters a unit thats morphed from a mutalisk and in turn make mutalisks also have the ability to be morphed to a broodlord? Making both units a T3 Z air unit from the greater spire?
We all know how devestating the broodlord/corrupter + infestor composition is and the difficulty in dealing with this. By undergoing the change above, the composition would be more likely broodlord/mutalisk + infestors unless the Z player dedicates his resources into making corrupters. So in a sense its nerfing that composition without touching the unit stats themselves (maybe a slight readjustment of the corrupter stats) but also it would be much resource intensive to reach broodlord/corrupter + infestor comp.
so your suggestion is to make the corruptor more expensive or just give it more build-time via morphing him from the mutalisk?
blizzard probably doesnt want to make it the way it was in broodwar, which is why i think they wanted to exchange the carrier instead of changing it.
i think the corruptor-bl-comp is beatable in every mu if you scout it early enough. toss might have some problems with it, but i think they'll find it out. against terran i dont see it as often anymore.
if not it might be viable to buff the void-ray in any way and/or to make corruptor a massive unit.
|
On April 13 2012 09:04 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 08:01 Berailfor wrote:On April 13 2012 06:37 NEOtheONE wrote:The tempest is currently a very long-ranged aerial siege weapon that can strike both air and ground targets. This gives the protoss army some real reach to force an engagement on their terms in the end-game.
So let me get this straight, the Tempest is now essentially the Carrier version 2.0? You remove the carrier to replace it with another carrier. *facepalm* The carrier builds interceptors, sucks without high air attack upgrades, and does not have long range. The tempest won't need to spend a ton of extra minerals to gain (and upkeep) full DPS, won't require as much of an upgrade advantage as carriers needed because no interceptors, will have longer range (at least long enough to abuse cliffs like broodlords do) and don't need major scripting/design changes like the carrier would need if it were to ever be effective (they can start from scratch with a cool new unit) So what you're saying is that we have a carrier which interceptors can't be killed. We really need a new unit for that?
No, I'm saying we have a unit that doesn't have the cost of interceptors, the vulnerabity of interceptors, the problem with transitioning and having the opponent who is already +2 armor mean -32 damage for the units firing, and has longer range and different health costs.
It's much easier to make that new unit than completely rework the carrier in it's current form. You'll also have to look at it from a developer point of view. To change interceptor AI as is could be a pretty damn tough script change. It's not always as simple as it sounds. The underlying changes to the scripts for the carriers, interceptors, and their relations could be a lot more complex most people make it out to be.
I dunno what everyone's complaining about anyway. At least they are addressing the problem that the carrier is crap and can't even abuse cliffs like in BW. I'm happy they understand it's a problem and are working to fix it.
|
Honestly, interceptors (and therefore the carreir) don't have a place in sc2. Compact balls of high DPS AA units tear them apart and they don't really serve a purpose. I'd rather have the Tempest than the Carrier as far as actually being able to use a T3 air unit goes :|
|
On April 13 2012 09:02 Destructicon wrote:
I don't see the need to shoot down his argument as a balance whine. It is a known fact that Colossus and Carriers share one very big weakness in the form of Vikings. They also share similar functionality and strengths. The colossus can be a siege unit, but it is rarely used as such because of its massive splash and great DPS, the carrier doesn't aoe, so its mostly a siege unit or a good sniper against expensive high HP units.
They both have great mobility, Colossus can walk up and down cliffs and over units, the carrier can fly.
Both units are indeed very different, but the similarities in both mobility and weakness make Colossus a better choice because of its aoe. Lastly Colossus is part of a tech path that gets both detection and benefits from forge upgrades, stargate play gets neither.
As long as terran play bio, carriers won't be viable, because they get hard countered by both vikings, and marines the most common terran unit, while Colossus gets only countered by vikings. Carrier would be most viable against mech and with Blizzard looking to make mech viable in HoTS it would be perfect for the carrier to make a comeback there. Even so the carrier still would require a lots of changes to make it work, changes to its interceptor AI, costs, survivability, and build time.
Yeah, obviously balance would be reset with HotS so if balance was my motivation for a comment like that it would be totally useless.
The Colossus doesn't seem to be overpowered in that it's too hard to deal with for the opponent, but there are certainly reasons it's used so often.
Protoss also only has one mineral dump unit, the Zealot, which is melee so it doesn't have much use in higher numbers. I want to be able to get carriers so I can spend my money on interceptors.
On April 13 2012 09:22 YyapSsap wrote:
Does anyone think that Blizzard should infact make corrupters a unit thats morphed from a mutalisk and in turn make mutalisks also have the ability to be morphed to a broodlord? Making both units a T3 Z air unit from the greater spire?
We all know how devestating the broodlord/corrupter + infestor composition is and the difficulty in dealing with this. By undergoing the change above, the composition would be more likely broodlord/mutalisk + infestors unless the Z player dedicates his resources into making corrupters. So in a sense its nerfing that composition without touching the unit stats themselves (maybe a slight readjustment of the corrupter stats) but also it would be much resource intensive to reach broodlord/corrupter + infestor comp.
Yeah I was thinking this same thing.
|
There's so much negativity here. It seems like most of you don't even realize how little information you actually have, and how baseless some of your conclusions are. I know I'm making a broad statement, but the only piece of information we have is a short text explaining in super broad terms where the design team is at. None of you have seen these units in an actual game, you have no idea how their abilities have been implemented, how it affected the balance, what they look like in action, etc...
What you are doing is jumping to conclusions prematurely and making completely baseless assumptions about the qualifications of the design team. Arguing that SC2 as an esport is not a success is completely delusional and I don't think that a bunch of incompetents could manage to create the most popular esport outside of Korea.
The purpose of this blog is just to stay connected to the fanbase, it's not meant to explain in detail how the new units work, so I believe we should withhold judgment until the damn game comes out.
|
And you though toss death ball late game was bad enough.. now they have a siege unit with it along with the Collosi and if they have 4 or 5 base they can constantly switch their location with recall all over the map defending every expansion as well... Oh did I mention they can already warp in units anywhere in the map.... so that team of zealots that killing your expo, yeah.. they are going home safely to the death ball lol.
And why is zerg getting mobility, map control, cost effective, and siege? I thought the races were supposed to be unique. Instead of making zerg units that are like terran and serve the same purpose how about making it so that the zerg can improve n their mobility and scouting capability?
Look I understand terran is really flexible and is prolly the best overall built race in the game. But terran mech is woefully weak. Focus on that and less on space control, terran is already very strong at that, what we need are better Anti air for mech vs Zerg, I think the spidermines would do a good job, play into terran space control abilities terran already has but doesn't make us so mobile with it that its broken. And Terran needs BETTER END GAME Mech VS TOSS. Terran mech can't dodge storms, Thors get feedback, Our splash capability cannot compete. Hellions die too fast and seige is worthless because toss has blink stalkers and charge lots, and the units that can't close the distance that fast are beefy, Collosi, Archon, and Immortals rape. That makes for a bad recipe for terran. Even with EMP terran simply can't out compete toss late game head to head... actually neither can zerg lol. Well at least Mothership is gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
