|
This thread is going nowhere and I'm tired of dealing with it. Either drop the personal attacks and whining and replace it with actual discussion or it'll be closed.
12:09 KST Page 98 |
On June 26 2012 18:04 Deckkie wrote:
I have a question for the swarm.
How did you guys feel about ZvT pre patch.
From a Terran point of view I loved it. It was a solid opening that gave map control until Zerg could take it over. It opened a lot of tech, there were many way to go for a two base timing or go for a fast third. All together it has been by far my favorite TvZ meta.
But when I think like that I see the possibility that Zerg maybe didnt like it as much. I think you enjoyed the little struggle of Hellion vs spine and queen, into taking over map control. But how was it to work against so many follow ups? Was it very hard to be able to see the difference between a fst thrid and a two base all in? How was the mass Hellion all-in? Did you often go into mid game feeling far behind? And if there was trouble scouting, do you think the overlord speed buff would be sufficient enough to help in that regard?
From my (biased) pov, it was not fun.
You feel helpless, constantly under attack, you always double check you queen position because 1 hair thin missplacement on the ramp means: roastinggggggggg timeeeeeee
You cant move out and you are completely blind unless you get roaches or mass Speedlings.
Your creep ends at your base.
Your overlord gets shot by 1 Marine (2 are enough to cover nearly all possible angles on most maps).
You feel terribly behind.
Did he expand? Did he even double expand?
Is he still one base? Is there a Banshee follow up (delaying my third even longer as there is no creep)?
Is he going Mech? Is it just 4 Hellions or does he follow up mass hellions? Hellion Marauder?
WTF hellion drop in my mainbase?
The overlord speed buff was a nessesarity, not because of "I cant see his base" but because of "lol i dont even get near his base before getting killed"
|
On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue.  Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different.
When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same.
And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter.
|
On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter.
The games aren't the same in the earlygame, and thus the stat comparisons don't matter.
And lings are more useful than marines are in the earlygame. The same goes for zealots in the compositions that matter, i.e marine marauder vs zealot+stalker+sentry. I don't even know how you consider marines overpowered in the earlygame before they get their tech up. And it's clearly because I'm a terran player that I don't compare stats between two different games. Flawless logic on your part.
|
On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter.
Because another early game nerf will clearly compensate terran dominance and prevent them from doing damage so that you can go straight into late game because thats where terran shines , amirite?
|
On June 26 2012 19:03 moki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 18:28 Protosnake wrote:
It wasnt that "unbalanced" but it was pretty much a nobrainer, you could contain a Z on 2 base, deny creep, deny map control, get safe against any zergling aggression and could potentially end the game with a runby
So just like how speedlings works in the early/midgame? That does not sound very unfair.
Kind of, except that they dont when hellions are in play
Also, I want to point out that zerg probably need map control more than terran does
|
That depends a lot on numbers. Hellions have an advantage probably, but speedlings are far from helpless against early Hellions. It depends on correct engagements to a huge, huge degree on both sides. Some wrong angles get either side slaughtered quite mercilessly.
|
On June 26 2012 19:03 moki wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 18:28 Protosnake wrote:
It wasnt that "unbalanced" but it was pretty much a nobrainer, you could contain a Z on 2 base, deny creep, deny map control, get safe against any zergling aggression and could potentially end the game with a runby
So just like how speedlings works in the early/midgame? That does not sound very unfair.
Well, there are some differences between T and Z that make this actually quite different from a speedling contain. Here are a few:
1) Z needs to be ahead in bases to survive. 2 base against 2 base is considered being at an advantage for T.
2) T, as part of race design, does not rely on anything that requires prolonged previous map control (read: creep) to avoid losing to game-ending pushes.
3) lings runbys against T require some bronze level fuck-up on T's part. Managing range 3 queen was definitely harder
4) a Z who builds enough speedlings to contain T is performing economic seppuku. The same couldn't be said of T, who would build a third CC behind four hellions and continue SCV production, since they don't quite work with larvae.
|
On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. The games aren't the same in the earlygame, and thus the stat comparisons don't matter.
They are. For nearly all intents and purposes, the game is the same during a bunker rush, except for the part where marines were so overpowered that Blizzard had to nerf bunkers twice, scv life, and require depots before rax. Instead of that, they could have simply addressed the real issue, which was the marine.
On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:
And lings are more useful than marines are in the earlygame. The same goes for zealots in the compositions that matter, i.e marine marauder vs zealot+stalker+sentry. I don't even know how you consider marines overpowered in the earlygame before they get their tech up.
Blizzard had to nerf the shit out of nearly every other Terran unit in order to achieve a semblance of balance (not to mention make marine counters incredibly powerful, and buffing building hp), simply because they refused to touch the marine. Ignore the comparison to BW all you want, it's still a fact that too much of Terran's power is invested in marine, and that's why it's central to every Terran composition.
On June 26 2012 19:14 Rictusz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. Because another early game nerf will clearly compensate terran dominance and prevent them from doing damage so that you can go straight into late game because thats where terran shines , amirite?
Fixing marines would allow many Terran nerfs to be reverted (starting with depot before rax, SCV life, and bunkers), and allow buffs of Terran units across the board to improve Terran lategames.
This would make for a more balanced as well as diverse Terran race, not to mention one that is more fun to play with and against.
|
On June 26 2012 19:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. The games aren't the same in the earlygame, and thus the stat comparisons don't matter. They are. For nearly all intents and purposes, the game is the same during a bunker rush, except for the part where marines were so overpowered that Blizzard had to nerf bunkers twice, scv life, and require depots before rax. Instead of that, they could have simply addressed the real issue, which was the marine. Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:
And lings are more useful than marines are in the earlygame. The same goes for zealots in the compositions that matter, i.e marine marauder vs zealot+stalker+sentry. I don't even know how you consider marines overpowered in the earlygame before they get their tech up. Blizzard had to nerf the shit out of nearly every other Terran unit in order to achieve a semblance of balance (not to mention make marine counters incredibly powerful, and buffing building hp), simply because they refused to touch the marine. Ignore the comparison to BW all you want, it's still a fact that too much of Terran's power is invested in marine, and that's why it's central to every Terran composition. Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:14 Rictusz wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. Because another early game nerf will clearly compensate terran dominance and prevent them from doing damage so that you can go straight into late game because thats where terran shines , amirite? Fixing marines would allow many Terran nerfs to be reverted (starting with depot before rax, SCV life, and bunkers), and allow buffs of Terran units across the board to improve Terran lategames. This would make for a more balanced as well as diverse Terran race, not to mention one that is more fun to play with and against.
the marine is central to every terran composition because nothing else works well enough on their own.
You dont think if other things raped face and had higher HP terran would make them instead? I cant believe we are even talking about the marine now. wtf
|
On June 26 2012 19:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. The games aren't the same in the earlygame, and thus the stat comparisons don't matter. They are. For nearly all intents and purposes, the game is the same during a bunker rush, except for the part where marines were so overpowered that Blizzard had to nerf bunkers twice, scv life, and require depots before rax. Instead of that, they could have simply addressed the real issue, which was the marine. Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:
And lings are more useful than marines are in the earlygame. The same goes for zealots in the compositions that matter, i.e marine marauder vs zealot+stalker+sentry. I don't even know how you consider marines overpowered in the earlygame before they get their tech up. Blizzard had to nerf the shit out of nearly every other Terran unit in order to achieve a semblance of balance (not to mention make marine counters incredibly powerful, and buffing building hp), simply because they refused to touch the marine. Ignore the comparison to BW all you want, it's still a fact that too much of Terran's power is invested in marine, and that's why it's central to every Terran composition. Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:14 Rictusz wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. Because another early game nerf will clearly compensate terran dominance and prevent them from doing damage so that you can go straight into late game because thats where terran shines , amirite? Fixing marines would allow many Terran nerfs to be reverted (starting with depot before rax, SCV life, and bunkers), and allow buffs of Terran units across the board to improve Terran lategames.
This would make for a more balanced as well as diverse Terran race, not to mention one that is more fun to play with and against.
Please give some nerfs that could be converted that actually change the lategame?
|
Meanwhile in the gsl, every terran has got through. (bomber 1 game away)
|
On June 26 2012 20:05 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:59 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. The games aren't the same in the earlygame, and thus the stat comparisons don't matter. They are. For nearly all intents and purposes, the game is the same during a bunker rush, except for the part where marines were so overpowered that Blizzard had to nerf bunkers twice, scv life, and require depots before rax. Instead of that, they could have simply addressed the real issue, which was the marine. On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:
And lings are more useful than marines are in the earlygame. The same goes for zealots in the compositions that matter, i.e marine marauder vs zealot+stalker+sentry. I don't even know how you consider marines overpowered in the earlygame before they get their tech up. Blizzard had to nerf the shit out of nearly every other Terran unit in order to achieve a semblance of balance (not to mention make marine counters incredibly powerful, and buffing building hp), simply because they refused to touch the marine. Ignore the comparison to BW all you want, it's still a fact that too much of Terran's power is invested in marine, and that's why it's central to every Terran composition. On June 26 2012 19:14 Rictusz wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. Because another early game nerf will clearly compensate terran dominance and prevent them from doing damage so that you can go straight into late game because thats where terran shines , amirite? Fixing marines would allow many Terran nerfs to be reverted (starting with depot before rax, SCV life, and bunkers), and allow buffs of Terran units across the board to improve Terran lategames. This would make for a more balanced as well as diverse Terran race, not to mention one that is more fun to play with and against. the marine is central to every terran composition because nothing else works well enough on their own. You dont think if other things raped face and had higher HP terran would make them instead? I cant believe we are even talking about the marine now. wtf
Nothing else works on its own because it was nerfed to accomodate for the power of the Marine. For instance, take Mech against Protoss, would it not be more viable with Tanks doing 50 damage to light? But that nerf can't be reverted because of 1/1/1 vs Protoss, which only really works because of Marines.
This is just an example, and I'm not complaining that Marines are too good; merely observing that a lot of the Terran lategame woes stem from the fact that Marines are so powerful, and that they're basically required in any unit composition.
|
On June 26 2012 20:05 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:59 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. The games aren't the same in the earlygame, and thus the stat comparisons don't matter. They are. For nearly all intents and purposes, the game is the same during a bunker rush, except for the part where marines were so overpowered that Blizzard had to nerf bunkers twice, scv life, and require depots before rax. Instead of that, they could have simply addressed the real issue, which was the marine. On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:
And lings are more useful than marines are in the earlygame. The same goes for zealots in the compositions that matter, i.e marine marauder vs zealot+stalker+sentry. I don't even know how you consider marines overpowered in the earlygame before they get their tech up. Blizzard had to nerf the shit out of nearly every other Terran unit in order to achieve a semblance of balance (not to mention make marine counters incredibly powerful, and buffing building hp), simply because they refused to touch the marine. Ignore the comparison to BW all you want, it's still a fact that too much of Terran's power is invested in marine, and that's why it's central to every Terran composition. On June 26 2012 19:14 Rictusz wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. Because another early game nerf will clearly compensate terran dominance and prevent them from doing damage so that you can go straight into late game because thats where terran shines , amirite? Fixing marines would allow many Terran nerfs to be reverted (starting with depot before rax, SCV life, and bunkers), and allow buffs of Terran units across the board to improve Terran lategames. This would make for a more balanced as well as diverse Terran race, not to mention one that is more fun to play with and against. the marine is central to every terran composition because nothing else works well enough on their own. You dont think if other things raped face and had higher HP terran would make them instead?
That's the point. So much of Terran's power is invested into the marine that Blizzard had to nerf everything else to compensate. If we undid that by properly balancing the marine, then other units could be made more viable without unbalancing Terran.
On June 26 2012 20:05 Sadist wrote:
I cant believe we are even talking about the marine now. wtf
You'd be surprised by how much of a RTS's game design problems can flow from a single lopsided early unit.
On June 26 2012 20:17 SomeONEx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:59 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. The games aren't the same in the earlygame, and thus the stat comparisons don't matter. They are. For nearly all intents and purposes, the game is the same during a bunker rush, except for the part where marines were so overpowered that Blizzard had to nerf bunkers twice, scv life, and require depots before rax. Instead of that, they could have simply addressed the real issue, which was the marine. On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:
And lings are more useful than marines are in the earlygame. The same goes for zealots in the compositions that matter, i.e marine marauder vs zealot+stalker+sentry. I don't even know how you consider marines overpowered in the earlygame before they get their tech up. Blizzard had to nerf the shit out of nearly every other Terran unit in order to achieve a semblance of balance (not to mention make marine counters incredibly powerful, and buffing building hp), simply because they refused to touch the marine. Ignore the comparison to BW all you want, it's still a fact that too much of Terran's power is invested in marine, and that's why it's central to every Terran composition. On June 26 2012 19:14 Rictusz wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. Because another early game nerf will clearly compensate terran dominance and prevent them from doing damage so that you can go straight into late game because thats where terran shines , amirite? Fixing marines would allow many Terran nerfs to be reverted (starting with depot before rax, SCV life, and bunkers), and allow buffs of Terran units across the board to improve Terran lategames.
This would make for a more balanced as well as diverse Terran race, not to mention one that is more fun to play with and against. Please give some nerfs that could be converted that actually change the lategame?
To start with, siege tanks: 60 damage siege tanks alone would make a huge difference, though alternatively we could reduce them to 2 supply. The battlecruiser damage nerf could be reverted. Of course, we're not limited to reverting buffs when rebalancing Terran to account for a fixed marine.
|
best thing would be to nerf stim (lets say instead of 50% make it 30%) + perhaps medivac healing a litte and buff BC, tanks and ravens.
wouldnt make things like 1 rax FE weaker but would make T lategame stronger and MMM midgame pushes weaker so both Z and P would have more motivations to stay in midgame. e.g. mutas would be playable again and hell, they are a LOT more fun to watch and play than infestors.
|
On June 26 2012 20:41 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 20:05 Sadist wrote:On June 26 2012 19:59 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. The games aren't the same in the earlygame, and thus the stat comparisons don't matter. They are. For nearly all intents and purposes, the game is the same during a bunker rush, except for the part where marines were so overpowered that Blizzard had to nerf bunkers twice, scv life, and require depots before rax. Instead of that, they could have simply addressed the real issue, which was the marine. On June 26 2012 19:13 Dalavita wrote:
And lings are more useful than marines are in the earlygame. The same goes for zealots in the compositions that matter, i.e marine marauder vs zealot+stalker+sentry. I don't even know how you consider marines overpowered in the earlygame before they get their tech up. Blizzard had to nerf the shit out of nearly every other Terran unit in order to achieve a semblance of balance (not to mention make marine counters incredibly powerful, and buffing building hp), simply because they refused to touch the marine. Ignore the comparison to BW all you want, it's still a fact that too much of Terran's power is invested in marine, and that's why it's central to every Terran composition. On June 26 2012 19:14 Rictusz wrote:On June 26 2012 19:10 sunprince wrote:On June 26 2012 17:39 Dalavita wrote:On June 26 2012 17:27 sunprince wrote:The problem was that Marines were (and still are) far stronger than their BW counterparts ( immediate free range upgrade, +5 hp, +19% attack speed), while Zealots ( -10 shield, +25% attack speed) and Zerglings ( -22% attack speed) are not. Unfortunately, Blizzard would rather stick with their sacred cows and leave Marines untouched, than address the real issue. Are we still using these stats? BW comparisons are irrelevant. Different games are different. When we're talking only about the early game, the games are the same. And it's in that early game that it becomes obvious why marines are ridiculously overpowered, but of course as a Terran player you insist on pretending it doesn't matter. Because another early game nerf will clearly compensate terran dominance and prevent them from doing damage so that you can go straight into late game because thats where terran shines , amirite? Fixing marines would allow many Terran nerfs to be reverted (starting with depot before rax, SCV life, and bunkers), and allow buffs of Terran units across the board to improve Terran lategames. This would make for a more balanced as well as diverse Terran race, not to mention one that is more fun to play with and against. the marine is central to every terran composition because nothing else works well enough on their own. You dont think if other things raped face and had higher HP terran would make them instead? I cant believe we are even talking about the marine now. wtf Nothing else works on its own because it was nerfed to accomodate for the power of the Marine. For instance, take Mech against Protoss, would it not be more viable with Tanks doing 50 damage to light? But that nerf can't be reverted because of 1/1/1 vs Protoss, which only really works because of Marines. This is just an example, and I'm not complaining that Marines are too good; merely observing that a lot of the Terran lategame woes stem from the fact that Marines are so powerful, and that they're basically required in any unit composition.
Bolded for emphasis and agreement.
|
On June 26 2012 20:31 Reaps wrote:
Meanwhile in the gsl, every terran has got through. (bomber 1 game away)
erm, why are all of them in code A in the first place? including probably top 3 or not the best terran in the world MMA..
|
On June 26 2012 19:57 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 19:03 moki wrote:On June 26 2012 18:28 Protosnake wrote:
It wasnt that "unbalanced" but it was pretty much a nobrainer, you could contain a Z on 2 base, deny creep, deny map control, get safe against any zergling aggression and could potentially end the game with a runby
So just like how speedlings works in the early/midgame? That does not sound very unfair. Well, there are some differences between T and Z that make this actually quite different from a speedling contain. Here are a few: 1) Z needs to be ahead in bases to survive. 2 base against 2 base is considered being at an advantage for T.
Wrong wrong wrong: infestor + hive can trade cost efficient with terran, so 3 base vs 3 base is perfectly possible.
Please play the game at high masters or above, so you understand it.
|
Any nerfs to marines without other drastic changes are going to break all of the other parts of other matchups though.
I want to vomit thinking about TvP with nerfed marines. You don't really have time to get anything more than 1 tank up when a 4 gate would hit and holding with nerfed marines sounds pretty awful.
|
On June 26 2012 21:04 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 20:31 Reaps wrote:
Meanwhile in the gsl, every terran has got through. (bomber 1 game away)
erm, why are all of them in code A in the first place? including probably top 3 or not the best terran in the world MMA..
People like you always find something to whine about, what is this community coming to ;/
|
On June 26 2012 15:48 archides wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 15:24 tokicheese wrote:
I think my major issue is that every time a Terran player figured out a new strat it always gets nerfed either slowly or right into oblivion. I can't think of a build that wasn't being beaten by the time Blizz heavy handily nerfed the shit out of something other than the Ghost snipe but that was only seen a in a handful of pro games. And people keep saying "Stop whining and figure out new builds". Terran has been by far the most innovative race in SC2 and eventually there will be nothing left to innovate to. We may be at that point or we may not but the other races have been getting buffed and terran has been constantly nerfed.
Blizz is a joke. They nerfed thors because they didn't like how it looked en masse. How the fuck is that in anyway a good way to decide how to buff and nerf things and vastly change the game for people who earn a living off of it over nothing... Every time they change anything it totally changes the game and they often do it right before major tournaments. I don't understand why they can't do small changes and see how things go and slowly change things as needed instead of huge changes. They can't even fucking handle banning hackers. I gotta cosign with you. It's not just one or two nerfs that are turning terrans away, or making them consider swtiching races, it's the pattern of continually taking away options from the race while adding nothing in return to address the weaknesses. It starts to feel like 'what's the point of innovating if every answer gets nerfed?'.
I understand how frustrating that feeling must be. It might help to put yourself in the other races' shoes, though.
Sure, it's been great fun for you to have options, to have a more or less free choice of build and smash it into your opponent's hopefully unprepared face. But for your choice to be free, your opponent is obliged to always respond to what you do (or lose). And that has been Zerg's job in the matchup since release: try to find ways to cope with everything that gets thrown at them so they can get to the part of the game where they get a chance to win. Check the strategy forum and you'll find what I did: TvZ and ZvT guides both talked almost exclusively about Terran builds.
This would have been ok, except it turned out that Zerg didn't have the tools to cope. The range of deviations required were too extreme, scouting ability inadequate, and the holes in the tech tree left by the expensive, useless hydralisk and undesirable roach too big. Zergs had nothing to tech to that would make a difference in small, low-eco numbers and no way to impose themselves on the early game and deny Terran options.
The solution chosen was to buff the infestor to provide that "Phew, made it!" point on the tech tree, tone down some of the Terran builds, and latterly to buff the Zerg's only flexible early-game defensive unit, the queen, along with overlord scouting.
The cumulative result has been to even up the matchup in terms of who has the initiative. Leaving 'balance' aside for a moment, it's refreshing to see Terrans complaining that they're struggling to distinguish macro play from a sudden roach/ling/bling all-in. Before that, the last (featured poster) Terran guide I read stated that it wasn't worth scanning a Zerg before the 10:30 mark because it simply didn't matter what they were doing. I call that an improvement 
Returning to the question of balance - that I don't know about. Maybe it is too costly for Terrans to deflect Zergs from their economic play now. Maybe the Terran late-game does need to be buffed to compensate for the greater ease with which Zergs can reach it. Perhaps we could see Reapers returned to some of their former glory, or a tank buff.
Whatever we do, I think it's right to go forward from here with win/loss balance fixes, rather than undoing legitimate changes to the balance of initiative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
