... It's pretty obvious and easy to tell the difference between someone who is balance whining and someone who is making a legitimate point about balance. Pro players tend to do the latter. What are you people even arguing about? :\
The reason that foreigners are doing better globally with zerg than with protoss or terran probably has very little to do with the difficulty of each race or the alleged skill cap. It's a trend, not an answer-all. There are foreign terrans doing pretty well and foreign protoss too. Kas and Feast for example. At the top levels the better players are winning by making better decisions and executing things better. People should really stop trying to 'prove' that people are winning because any race is easier than any other.
On August 18 2012 02:18 kaokentake wrote: heres my balance idea
giving ravens increased speed is a fine idea, however
the mechanics required to move across the map against zerg while splitting your army DURING the moveout is insane. keeping your army from clumping is insane.
Give all units a scatter command. when pressed it causes all units to scatter away from nearby friendly units for 1 second. Spamming the scatter command can allow for quick spreads of units for much easier time moving across the map in a spread formation.
A scatter command would heavily nerf fungal growth without needing to touch its stats at all
Yeah lets also add autocasting for spells and autoblink etc. Blizzard already lowered the skill gap with automine, unlimited control groups and smart casting, lets not fuck it up even more with auto scattering. Yes what you described is really hard on like a diamond level, but nothing should ever be added to the game to "fix" that level of play. Pro level shows that it's easily possible to split well, and the more we continue down the road the better people will get it.
Also BeyondCtrL just made a really good post above me, everyone should read and comprehend what he posted, I feel like especially terran players who suck at splitting etc. underestimate how hard protoss micro really is on the highest level of play and how much potential is still unused in terms of unit positioning. And no i'm not saying this because I'm toss, I play random.
I used to lose so many games against big bio pressures because of that lol, I'd spread everything preemptively and it'd all become a clusterfuck when I tried to engage. I don't think we need some kind of scatter command, I'd just prefer it if there was some way to force your army to reclump a bit slower.
As of patch 1.5 I haven't been able to play so I need to test this, but if I recall correctly, if you rally/A-move to the furthest point on the map, doesn't it prevent this re-clumping up to an extent? I saw a video where some guy used the minimap to blink in this way and it maintained his concave really well.
Positioning is key with Protoss as you say, it's a bit part of the battle. Indeed when you get it wrong no amount of good micro will save you against Bio sometimes. There are subtleties to each race that are under-appreciated I guess
It's extremely funny i came back to the game a few weeks ago since seasson 1 (yes, i am not experienced yet to speak freely i know), but i find most of these problems aren't balance issues with the patchs, but mostly map pool issues (it's what really changed the game at the end). Terrans got nerfed to balance on maps where you played with 1-2 bases and a macro game was 3 bases most part of the time, and now you play with 2-3 decent bases most part of the time, hence macro becomes more important, but terran already got hit with the nerfbat long time ago for other kind of maps.
Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
On August 18 2012 06:16 Qikz wrote: Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
agreed
if you look at the ravens spell cast ranges its honestly pathetic
On August 18 2012 02:18 kaokentake wrote: heres my balance idea
giving ravens increased speed is a fine idea, however
the mechanics required to move across the map against zerg while splitting your army DURING the moveout is insane. keeping your army from clumping is insane.
Give all units a scatter command. when pressed it causes all units to scatter away from nearby friendly units for 1 second. Spamming the scatter command can allow for quick spreads of units for much easier time moving across the map in a spread formation.
A scatter command would heavily nerf fungal growth without needing to touch its stats at all
Why not just get this:
With that logic the game would get rid of alot of the micro that people have to do nowadays. Just hit the scatter button and marines split themselves against banelings, MMM gets out of the aoe range of collosus, lings can avoid the aoe of tanks, storms hit only a few units at once, etc. Adding a scatter button would be basically the same thing as adding a micro bot like this.
And to those who argued earlier that terran was fine at the highest skill level and used Taeja as their example, I tell you, terran is imba at the highest skill level. Just look at the micro of that bot, way over 3000 apm! I say nerf terran to hell! /endsarcasm
Do you see the flaw in your rguments? If you force every terran to have micro like this bot or the comparatively "easy" micro that taeja does, you can just more or less remove terran from the game because nobody will ever reach that skill level. So a buff to terran or nerf to other races has to either affect ALL skill levels or all skill levels up to taeja's for the changes to have any significance to the matchup. But what changes can be made to prevent the matchup from being imbalanced at any level and to stop all of these people from whining when the matchup is being fixed?
I'd rather just make other races harder with a higher skill cap. Terran micro can be mindlessly easy sometimes but it's always necessary. I just don't see why other races can't have similar mechanics.
I think Protoss have a lot of good micro potential that are not being used. Mostly because they might be way too intensive.
For example, unlike Terran armies which are very homogeneous in this respect, Protoss balls are a mix of different range and speed units. When attacking or defending Protoss probably has the biggest burden of correct positioning, something which always messes up whenever you move. Always keeping zealots in front sentries slightly behind (also positioning sentries more efficiently so as you cover more of your army with GS) and flanking with them stalkers. Making sure your HT are split and not too far behind.
Most games you will never see that constant level of attention because it can become way too taxing. But as time goes on I think Protoss players will eventually start making these micro changes to be even more effective. Also a lot of people underestimate the skill and accuracy needed to place efficient FFs, since, unlike fungals, FFs can work against a Protoss if you're not careful.
Dunno, it just feels like people only consider the marine splitting for banelings and nothing else when it comes to intensive micro. I know at Diamond level marine splitting is really important for terrans bcs banelings/fungal/storm are stupidly powerful when you can't micro well, but when you consider play at the highest level I think Protoss positioning and micro are severely underrated (especially in terms of potential micro).
Protoss doesn't need to do any of that and they can win 90% of the time. The only time control comes into play as protoss is when the other player is either a) coming at you with ~equal forces or b) coming at you with stronger forces. Terran CONSTANTLY has to micro due to the fragility of their units compared to the other races, even in situations where they're ahead. As Terran, there is rare a "macro" win where, regardless of the units being thrown away, theA+move and macro of the Terran is overwhelming. It's always using those few units with good macro and micro that wins games, ALWAYS.
Yes and if Terrans, like TaeJa, switch to Protoss they will never lose a game ever again. People need to get a grip on reality. Terran micro can be intense, especially vs. Z on creep, but it's not magnitudes of order better.
I agree that Terrans have a problem with Zergs in certain situations based on balance, but it's not this crazy imbalance which all these plat/dia Terrans think it is.
On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote: I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics?
No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT.
So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying?
Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran?
My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically.
This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss.
well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore.
precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly.
i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off.
the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents.
Aside from the simple but repetitive task of hitting injects Zerg macro is more simplistic than the other races in that it's not linear, and that everything comes from the same place drones do.
shouldn't have to respond to this, because it's brain-melting, but between injects and creep spread and economy management, there's always something you can be doing better. compared to chronoboosting an obvious building and dropping mules, yeah i'd say there's a higher ceiling there.
I don't really see the skill ceiling with Zerg at all. Vortix reached Rank 1 GM on EU and he barely uses creep in his games. The fact is you have so many great options as Zerg and if you only do a few of them half-decently you're bound to beat really good players who are probably better than you.
Yeah as a response to the micro potential of other races. This micro is not used because it is not needed. When you can win decisively with an A-move and some flanks, why bother to do more?
On August 18 2012 02:18 kaokentake wrote: heres my balance idea
giving ravens increased speed is a fine idea, however
the mechanics required to move across the map against zerg while splitting your army DURING the moveout is insane. keeping your army from clumping is insane.
Give all units a scatter command. when pressed it causes all units to scatter away from nearby friendly units for 1 second. Spamming the scatter command can allow for quick spreads of units for much easier time moving across the map in a spread formation.
A scatter command would heavily nerf fungal growth without needing to touch its stats at all
With that logic the game would get rid of alot of the micro that people have to do nowadays. Just hit the scatter button and marines split themselves against banelings, MMM gets out of the aoe range of collosus, lings can avoid the aoe of tanks, storms hit only a few units at once, etc. Adding a scatter button would be basically the same thing as adding a micro bot like this.
And to those who argued earlier that terran was fine at the highest skill level and used Taeja as their example, I tell you, terran is imba at the highest skill level. Just look at the micro of that bot, way over 3000 apm! I say nerf terran to hell! /endsarcasm
Do you see the flaw in your rguments? If you force every terran to have micro like this bot or the comparatively "easy" micro that taeja does, you can just more or less remove terran from the game because nobody will ever reach that skill level. So a buff to terran or nerf to other races has to either affect ALL skill levels or all skill levels up to taeja's for the changes to have any significance to the matchup. But what changes can be made to prevent the matchup from being imbalanced at any level and to stop all of these people from whining when the matchup is being fixed?
I'd rather just make other races harder with a higher skill cap. Terran micro can be mindlessly easy sometimes but it's always necessary. I just don't see why other races can't have similar mechanics.
I think Protoss have a lot of good micro potential that are not being used. Mostly because they might be way too intensive.
For example, unlike Terran armies which are very homogeneous in this respect, Protoss balls are a mix of different range and speed units. When attacking or defending Protoss probably has the biggest burden of correct positioning, something which always messes up whenever you move. Always keeping zealots in front sentries slightly behind (also positioning sentries more efficiently so as you cover more of your army with GS) and flanking with them stalkers. Making sure your HT are split and not too far behind.
Most games you will never see that constant level of attention because it can become way too taxing. But as time goes on I think Protoss players will eventually start making these micro changes to be even more effective. Also a lot of people underestimate the skill and accuracy needed to place efficient FFs, since, unlike fungals, FFs can work against a Protoss if you're not careful.
Dunno, it just feels like people only consider the marine splitting for banelings and nothing else when it comes to intensive micro. I know at Diamond level marine splitting is really important for terrans bcs banelings/fungal/storm are stupidly powerful when you can't micro well, but when you consider play at the highest level I think Protoss positioning and micro are severely underrated (especially in terms of potential micro).
Protoss doesn't need to do any of that and they can win 90% of the time. The only time control comes into play as protoss is when the other player is either a) coming at you with ~equal forces or b) coming at you with stronger forces. Terran CONSTANTLY has to micro due to the fragility of their units compared to the other races, even in situations where they're ahead. As Terran, there is rare a "macro" win where, regardless of the units being thrown away, theA+move and macro of the Terran is overwhelming. It's always using those few units with good macro and micro that wins games, ALWAYS.
Yes and if Terrans, like TaeJa, switch to Protoss they will never lose a game ever again. People need to get a grip on reality. Terran micro can be intense, especially vs. Z on creep, but it's not magnitudes of order better.
I agree that Terrans have a problem with Zergs in certain situations based on balance, but it's not this crazy imbalance which all these plat/dia Terrans think it is.
Actually, if Taeja did play Protoss or Zerg for that matter, he might just break the balance of this game ^_^
On August 18 2012 06:16 Qikz wrote: Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
agreed
if you look at the ravens spell cast ranges its honestly pathetic
If you make the seeker missile 8 range, then I don't think you can let the missiles stack their damage anymore.
On August 18 2012 06:16 Qikz wrote: Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
agreed
if you look at the ravens spell cast ranges its honestly pathetic
Two points: a long range seeker missile allows you to trade energy for resources, mass ravens are already almost impossible to beat in late-game in vZ/T and a buff would just be the ghost's snipe version 2.0. A lower range balances this, but works against the intent of the ability which is to have the opponent run away and split his units. Which might just mean that the ability doesn't really fit this game very well.
On August 18 2012 06:16 Qikz wrote: Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
agreed
if you look at the ravens spell cast ranges its honestly pathetic
Two points: a long range seeker missile allows you to trade energy for resources, mass ravens are already almost impossible to beat in late-game in vZ/T and a buff would just be the ghost's snipe version 2.0. A lower range balances this, but works against the intent of the ability which is to have the opponent run away and split his units. Which might just mean that the ability doesn't really fit this game very well.
I'll address your first two statements: Trading energy for resources is exactly the thing that infestors can regularly, so why is it bad if terran can do that as well? Especially since Raven is rather weak against protoss, so it will only be used against zerg, it will allow them to also trade energy for resources, just like infestor does for zerg.
And sure, mass raven is hard to deal with, but it is so hard to get there that it opens up a massive timing window for zerg. Infestor/BL is also almost impossible to deal with, it would be fair that if terran can hold on long enough to transition to ravens (which again, opens a huge timing window where they have nothing) that they would have the stronger army and put the pressure back on zerg. Also, ravens aren't very good against ultra ling infestor, so zerg can transition to that once the raven numbers build up.
On August 18 2012 06:16 Qikz wrote: Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
agreed
if you look at the ravens spell cast ranges its honestly pathetic
Two points: a long range seeker missile allows you to trade energy for resources, mass ravens are already almost impossible to beat in late-game in vZ/T and a buff would just be the ghost's snipe version 2.0. A lower range balances this, but works against the intent of the ability which is to have the opponent run away and split his units. Which might just mean that the ability doesn't really fit this game very well.
I'll address your first two statements: Trading energy for resources is exactly the thing that infestors can regularly, so why is it bad if terran can do that as well? Especially since Raven is rather weak against protoss, so it will only be used against zerg, it will allow them to also trade energy for resources, just like infestor does for zerg.
And sure, mass raven is hard to deal with, but it is so hard to get there that it opens up a massive timing window for zerg. Infestor/BL is also almost impossible to deal with, it would be fair that if terran can hold on long enough to transition to ravens (which again, opens a huge timing window where they have nothing) that they would have the stronger army and put the pressure back on zerg. Also, ravens aren't very good against ultra ling infestor, so zerg can transition to that once the raven numbers build up.
I have yet to see a high profile match that "abused" Ravens in large numbers. It's just not as feasible as massing casters of other races because of the high cost of the production buildings involved for Terran.
On August 18 2012 06:16 Qikz wrote: Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
agreed
if you look at the ravens spell cast ranges its honestly pathetic
Two points: a long range seeker missile allows you to trade energy for resources, mass ravens are already almost impossible to beat in late-game in vZ/T and a buff would just be the ghost's snipe version 2.0. A lower range balances this, but works against the intent of the ability which is to have the opponent run away and split his units. Which might just mean that the ability doesn't really fit this game very well.
"Almost impossible to deal with". You have got to be kidding me. If anything, Ravens only level the playing field in the late game, but the Zerg is still ahead. Additionally, it is much more difficult for Terran to even reach a requisite number of Ravens to even be at this point.
On August 18 2012 06:16 Qikz wrote: Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
agreed
if you look at the ravens spell cast ranges its honestly pathetic
Two points: a long range seeker missile allows you to trade energy for resources, mass ravens are already almost impossible to beat in late-game in vZ/T and a buff would just be the ghost's snipe version 2.0. A lower range balances this, but works against the intent of the ability which is to have the opponent run away and split his units. Which might just mean that the ability doesn't really fit this game very well.
I'll address your first two statements: Trading energy for resources is exactly the thing that infestors can regularly, so why is it bad if terran can do that as well? Especially since Raven is rather weak against protoss, so it will only be used against zerg, it will allow them to also trade energy for resources, just like infestor does for zerg.
And sure, mass raven is hard to deal with, but it is so hard to get there that it opens up a massive timing window for zerg. Infestor/BL is also almost impossible to deal with, it would be fair that if terran can hold on long enough to transition to ravens (which again, opens a huge timing window where they have nothing) that they would have the stronger army and put the pressure back on zerg. Also, ravens aren't very good against ultra ling infestor, so zerg can transition to that once the raven numbers build up.
I have yet to see a high profile match that "abused" Ravens in large numbers. It's just not as feasible as massing casters of other races because of the high cost of the production buildings involved for Terran.
The only casters that can be feasibly massed are infestors and ghosts in TvP. The ghosts can be built in large numbers in TvP because they are so useful for tanking damage and have high dps against zealots and emp for archons. Infestors can be massed because they are so good against almost every unit. Ghosts can't be massed in TvZ because they aren't useful besides counting infestors. HT/sentries can never be massed, while they are very strong units, they do not scale well with higher numbers.
On August 18 2012 06:16 Qikz wrote: Infact, you know what? Making the Seeker Missile range actually makes sense.
Right now it makes you feel like you have to be so close to the units that the whole seeker missile thing doesn't really work out. You have to be right on top of things to cast and usually people don't have a chance to even react to get away from it. :S
agreed
if you look at the ravens spell cast ranges its honestly pathetic
Two points: a long range seeker missile allows you to trade energy for resources, mass ravens are already almost impossible to beat in late-game in vZ/T and a buff would just be the ghost's snipe version 2.0. A lower range balances this, but works against the intent of the ability which is to have the opponent run away and split his units. Which might just mean that the ability doesn't really fit this game very well.
I'll address your first two statements: Trading energy for resources is exactly the thing that infestors can regularly, so why is it bad if terran can do that as well? Especially since Raven is rather weak against protoss, so it will only be used against zerg, it will allow them to also trade energy for resources, just like infestor does for zerg.
And sure, mass raven is hard to deal with, but it is so hard to get there that it opens up a massive timing window for zerg. Infestor/BL is also almost impossible to deal with, it would be fair that if terran can hold on long enough to transition to ravens (which again, opens a huge timing window where they have nothing) that they would have the stronger army and put the pressure back on zerg. Also, ravens aren't very good against ultra ling infestor, so zerg can transition to that once the raven numbers build up.
I have yet to see a high profile match that "abused" Ravens in large numbers. It's just not as feasible as massing casters of other races because of the high cost of the production buildings involved for Terran.
The only casters that can be feasibly massed are infestors and ghosts in TvP. The ghosts can be built in large numbers in TvP because they are so useful for tanking damage and have high dps against zealots and emp for archons. Infestors can be massed because they are so good against almost every unit. Ghosts can't be massed in TvZ because they aren't useful besides counting infestors. HT/sentries can never be massed, while they are very strong units, they do not scale well with higher numbers.
I think most people would agree that the Infestor is the strongest spellcaster in Sc2. And, if tweaked, we could reach a more manageable and exciting TvZ, like it used to be.
There was nothing special about his play in game 1. There were no great plays by slivko, and some larger bungles by him than by MVP, imo. It really felt like I was watching players in a matchup that was prescripted to go to Zerg, and there was no reasonable way it was going to end up otherwise.
On August 18 2012 02:18 kaokentake wrote: heres my balance idea
giving ravens increased speed is a fine idea, however
the mechanics required to move across the map against zerg while splitting your army DURING the moveout is insane. keeping your army from clumping is insane.
Give all units a scatter command. when pressed it causes all units to scatter away from nearby friendly units for 1 second. Spamming the scatter command can allow for quick spreads of units for much easier time moving across the map in a spread formation.
A scatter command would heavily nerf fungal growth without needing to touch its stats at all
With that logic the game would get rid of alot of the micro that people have to do nowadays. Just hit the scatter button and marines split themselves against banelings, MMM gets out of the aoe range of collosus, lings can avoid the aoe of tanks, storms hit only a few units at once, etc. Adding a scatter button would be basically the same thing as adding a micro bot like this.
And to those who argued earlier that terran was fine at the highest skill level and used Taeja as their example, I tell you, terran is imba at the highest skill level. Just look at the micro of that bot, way over 3000 apm! I say nerf terran to hell! /endsarcasm
Do you see the flaw in your rguments? If you force every terran to have micro like this bot or the comparatively "easy" micro that taeja does, you can just more or less remove terran from the game because nobody will ever reach that skill level. So a buff to terran or nerf to other races has to either affect ALL skill levels or all skill levels up to taeja's for the changes to have any significance to the matchup. But what changes can be made to prevent the matchup from being imbalanced at any level and to stop all of these people from whining when the matchup is being fixed?
I'd rather just make other races harder with a higher skill cap. Terran micro can be mindlessly easy sometimes but it's always necessary. I just don't see why other races can't have similar mechanics.
I think Protoss have a lot of good micro potential that are not being used. Mostly because they might be way too intensive.
For example, unlike Terran armies which are very homogeneous in this respect, Protoss balls are a mix of different range and speed units. When attacking or defending Protoss probably has the biggest burden of correct positioning, something which always messes up whenever you move. Always keeping zealots in front sentries slightly behind (also positioning sentries more efficiently so as you cover more of your army with GS) and flanking with them stalkers. Making sure your HT are split and not too far behind.
Most games you will never see that constant level of attention because it can become way too taxing. But as time goes on I think Protoss players will eventually start making these micro changes to be even more effective. Also a lot of people underestimate the skill and accuracy needed to place efficient FFs, since, unlike fungals, FFs can work against a Protoss if you're not careful.
Dunno, it just feels like people only consider the marine splitting for banelings and nothing else when it comes to intensive micro. I know at Diamond level marine splitting is really important for terrans bcs banelings/fungal/storm are stupidly powerful when you can't micro well, but when you consider play at the highest level I think Protoss positioning and micro are severely underrated (especially in terms of potential micro).
Protoss doesn't need to do any of that and they can win 90% of the time. The only time control comes into play as protoss is when the other player is either a) coming at you with ~equal forces or b) coming at you with stronger forces. Terran CONSTANTLY has to micro due to the fragility of their units compared to the other races, even in situations where they're ahead. As Terran, there is rare a "macro" win where, regardless of the units being thrown away, theA+move and macro of the Terran is overwhelming. It's always using those few units with good macro and micro that wins games, ALWAYS.
Yes and if Terrans, like TaeJa, switch to Protoss they will never lose a game ever again. People need to get a grip on reality. Terran micro can be intense, especially vs. Z on creep, but it's not magnitudes of order better.
I agree that Terrans have a problem with Zergs in certain situations based on balance, but it's not this crazy imbalance which all these plat/dia Terrans think it is.
Actually, if Taeja did play Protoss or Zerg for that matter, he might just break the balance of this game ^_^
Not really, Taeja is just mechanically solid, with great fundamentals and control. He wouldn't be able to use these natural attributes to his advantage with the other non-Terran races
On August 18 2012 02:18 kaokentake wrote: heres my balance idea
giving ravens increased speed is a fine idea, however
the mechanics required to move across the map against zerg while splitting your army DURING the moveout is insane. keeping your army from clumping is insane.
Give all units a scatter command. when pressed it causes all units to scatter away from nearby friendly units for 1 second. Spamming the scatter command can allow for quick spreads of units for much easier time moving across the map in a spread formation.
A scatter command would heavily nerf fungal growth without needing to touch its stats at all
With that logic the game would get rid of alot of the micro that people have to do nowadays. Just hit the scatter button and marines split themselves against banelings, MMM gets out of the aoe range of collosus, lings can avoid the aoe of tanks, storms hit only a few units at once, etc. Adding a scatter button would be basically the same thing as adding a micro bot like this.
And to those who argued earlier that terran was fine at the highest skill level and used Taeja as their example, I tell you, terran is imba at the highest skill level. Just look at the micro of that bot, way over 3000 apm! I say nerf terran to hell! /endsarcasm
Do you see the flaw in your rguments? If you force every terran to have micro like this bot or the comparatively "easy" micro that taeja does, you can just more or less remove terran from the game because nobody will ever reach that skill level. So a buff to terran or nerf to other races has to either affect ALL skill levels or all skill levels up to taeja's for the changes to have any significance to the matchup. But what changes can be made to prevent the matchup from being imbalanced at any level and to stop all of these people from whining when the matchup is being fixed?
I'd rather just make other races harder with a higher skill cap. Terran micro can be mindlessly easy sometimes but it's always necessary. I just don't see why other races can't have similar mechanics.
I think Protoss have a lot of good micro potential that are not being used. Mostly because they might be way too intensive.
For example, unlike Terran armies which are very homogeneous in this respect, Protoss balls are a mix of different range and speed units. When attacking or defending Protoss probably has the biggest burden of correct positioning, something which always messes up whenever you move. Always keeping zealots in front sentries slightly behind (also positioning sentries more efficiently so as you cover more of your army with GS) and flanking with them stalkers. Making sure your HT are split and not too far behind.
Most games you will never see that constant level of attention because it can become way too taxing. But as time goes on I think Protoss players will eventually start making these micro changes to be even more effective. Also a lot of people underestimate the skill and accuracy needed to place efficient FFs, since, unlike fungals, FFs can work against a Protoss if you're not careful.
Dunno, it just feels like people only consider the marine splitting for banelings and nothing else when it comes to intensive micro. I know at Diamond level marine splitting is really important for terrans bcs banelings/fungal/storm are stupidly powerful when you can't micro well, but when you consider play at the highest level I think Protoss positioning and micro are severely underrated (especially in terms of potential micro).
Protoss doesn't need to do any of that and they can win 90% of the time. The only time control comes into play as protoss is when the other player is either a) coming at you with ~equal forces or b) coming at you with stronger forces. Terran CONSTANTLY has to micro due to the fragility of their units compared to the other races, even in situations where they're ahead. As Terran, there is rare a "macro" win where, regardless of the units being thrown away, theA+move and macro of the Terran is overwhelming. It's always using those few units with good macro and micro that wins games, ALWAYS.
Yes and if Terrans, like TaeJa, switch to Protoss they will never lose a game ever again. People need to get a grip on reality. Terran micro can be intense, especially vs. Z on creep, but it's not magnitudes of order better.
I agree that Terrans have a problem with Zergs in certain situations based on balance, but it's not this crazy imbalance which all these plat/dia Terrans think it is.
Actually, if Taeja did play Protoss or Zerg for that matter, he might just break the balance of this game ^_^
Not really, Taeja is just mechanically solid, with great fundamentals and control. He wouldn't be able to use these natural attributes to his advantage with the other non-Terran races
Actually, regardless of which race Taeja plays, he will be a very solid player. He will be good completely regardless of race. He will be able to use those same fundamentals to elevate any race to appear broken, just like he is doing with terran.
The problem is that each race's late game is either straight out weaker or stronger than the other races. For example, a terran late game army is much weaker than a zergs late game army which creates imbalances in the game. Infestors, zergling/baneling, and any zerg T3 unit such as ultras or broodlords all work amazing together whereas terrans don't have units that mend well with late game units and their late game units are garbage in terms of dps and capability's.
BC's have low DPS and ravens are bad not to mention that ghosts don't mend well with any of these units as ghosts are more of a defensive unit. If Blizzard made BC's simliar to the carrier and broodlord in that it shoots out units from a very far distance than we would see a balanced late game when it comes to all races. I've been saying this for a while but I personally believe that a damage upgrade vs light units from the siege tanks thats on the fusion core a long with each unit being capable of being reactor produced from a tech that is researched on the fusion core would fix most if not all of terrans late game problems. This would allow late game terran to keep up with the capability of producing units fast that toss and zerg are capable of (larva and chrono).
If BC's were similar broodlord/carrier than a BC, siege tank, ghost, marine army would mend well vs a zergling, baneling, infestor, broodlord/curropter army and it would come down to macro, micro, and positioning late game vs this terran having to micro like a god while denying expansions imbalanced late game that we have now.
EPT
