|
On February 07 2013 16:11 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 15:39 Pursuit_ wrote:On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote:
On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ. Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops.
Good. That's exactly what has to happen. A huge problem with Protoss is that they are incredibly predictable.
|
On February 07 2013 23:02 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 16:11 BlackPanther wrote:On February 07 2013 15:39 Pursuit_ wrote:On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote:
On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ. Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops. Good. That's exactly what has to happen. A huge problem with Protoss is that they are incredibly predictable.
The flipside to that is that Terran has a lot more options late game now. Ravens are better, BC's are now a viable option that I've seen pros use, and the medivac upgrades make medivacs very strong. Even more important for Terran is that they now are completely unpredicatble it seems, so many things come out of 1 fact that predicting their next move is a lot harder, making the game more exciting to watch. I definitely don't think terran is screwed past 15 though.
|
United States1806 Posts
On February 07 2013 23:18 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 23:02 Jerubaal wrote:On February 07 2013 16:11 BlackPanther wrote:On February 07 2013 15:39 Pursuit_ wrote:On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote:
On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ. Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops. Good. That's exactly what has to happen. A huge problem with Protoss is that they are incredibly predictable. The flipside to that is that Terran has a lot more options late game now. Ravens are better, BC's are now a viable option that I've seen pros use, and the medivac upgrades make medivacs very strong. Even more important for Terran is that they now are completely unpredicatble it seems, so many things come out of 1 fact that predicting their next move is a lot harder, making the game more exciting to watch. I definitely don't think terran is screwed past 15 though.
Terran was never screwed past 15 in WoL. Terran was very weak between 15-20 when their ghost count was low but now were seeing late game engagements that go in Terrans favor because of carpet EMPs when the Terran gets a double digit ghost count. There's no way to avoid the EMPs or prevent them from happening. If the Terran lets 10-15 ghosts get feedbacked then he deserves to lose.
|
On February 07 2013 13:31 Scootaloo wrote:
For instance, to take the first balance argument in his post, basically a whine about how protoss is OP because they can warp and terran can't, completely forgetting that protoss warpgate units are weaker to compensate for this.
Funny how you call me idiot while you completely missed the point; not once in my post did I say that Protoss was “OP” because of Warpgate. I said that the production asymmetry makes Protoss more forgiving than Terran, because in lategame (not only in lategame actually, but this is the phase in which the issue is the most obvious) Protoss usually gets several chances while Terran rarely has a second opportunity.
Protoss Warpgate units are weaker? Weaker than what? Weaker than what they could be if Warpgate did not exist? Sure, but it does not matter since this would be another game; it's like saying, “Oh, Marines and Hellions would have to be weaker if Terran could produce them 3 at a time with Reactors”. Yep, but it's irrelevant, because the units' statistics are supposed to match their “producibility” and thus are (supposed to be) centered around the current production factors, i. e. Warpgate being available the whole game after you search it and Reactors doubling, not tripling the production.
Or maybe you're referring to the common fallacy that “Gateway units are weak,” full stop?
If Gateway units are weak why do Terrans need to make 3 Bunkers against 4/5g pressure to barely survive?
If Gateway units are weak why is it a common sight to see 6/7g bulldoze their way through 4-5 Bunkers like it's no problem? Why does a build like 1 gate double expand → 8g even exist?
If Gateway units are weak why do players like PartinG sometimes play full Gateway (except Observers but let us admit they don't have tremendous dps), not even starting Colossi before their fourth? Surely Terrans should be able to bash such a shameful weakness? Or maybe PartinG is clueless and does not understand what the average joe knows since 2010, that “Gateway units are weak because of Warpgate” (so play Stargate I guess?).
Just because the efficiency of unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries drastically decreases when Terran gets critical mass of MMM does not mean they're “weak;” it means superior technology prevails, which is working as intended (strongly baiting the “lol but then why Terrans still win with tier1 Mariners since 2010” idiotic argument here, please come and get some). By the way Archons and HTs are Gateway units too and they're not weak at all, Charge Zealots are very strong (insanely strong with the upgrade advantage, which occurs very often in midgame) and Blink Stalkers provide great utility; just because they lack the raw dps of other units does not make them “weak” at all. Dark Templars are very weak in direct fights but we know they have other uses.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote:
The biggest problem I had in what he said is he just pointed out the fundamentals of Zerg and Protoss and used very specific pro game examples to prove that Protoss and Zerg are forgiving.
The ability to repair or lift buildings is not meaningless but doesn't shape the game in the same way as Zerg being able to produce 5, 10, 15, 26 Drones at once while the other races can usually produce 3 workers simultaneously at most, or Protoss being able to produce Gateway units anywhere as long as they have Psi there. The Broodlords/Infestors issue exists because of Zerg's production while Battlecruisers/Ravens is seen maybe 1 out of 500 games (statistics courtesy of rdmstats.net) precisely because of Terran's production. Terran and Protoss have armies which can challenge Broodlords/Corruptors/Infestors, but it barely matters because it takes 10 extra minuts and expensive infrastructure to get them while Broodlords can knock at your door at 16' – 17'.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote:
The same thing can be done for Terran. I can't count the number of times Terran got behind and they pulled SCVs and were able to pull off a victory because of mules (Tear vs Yoda is the most recent example I can think of).
You mean the Icarus game in which YoDa has to overcommit to defend Immortal pressure, then is forced to all-in because meanwhile Tear took his third and teched hard, and only succeeds because Tear eagerly throws himself into the battle instead of stalling if only 30 seconds and auto-winning?
Yes MULEs are stupid. It's dumb that a race can have a decent income, even if only temporarily, while having virtually no workers. But why do MULEs exist? Production asymmetry once again.
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote:
How about in the early game were 1 misplaced queen/spine crawler/evo chamber can mean game over?
Really? First, Zerg doesn't lose because a 4 Hellions runby kills 7-8 Drones; second this is not race-specific since Terran misplacing/not raising a wall can lose to Zergling raids too, and Protoss can lose with FFE against Zerg too if their wall is not complete (HerO vs Targa, Cloud Kingdom, Dreamhack Valencia 2012).
On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote:
What about supply drops?
Ah, supply blocks.
When you get supply blocked as Zerg it hurts, but larvae are still there after the supply block is ended and Overlords take 25 seconds; plus you can make them without watching your base.
When you get supply blocked as Protoss it hurts, but at least you can instantly have a round of warp-ins once the supply block is gone, and units are expensive so assuming you don't lack Gateways you can quickly deplete any banked resources; Protoss' production is not as regular as Terran's cycles-wise. Pylons take 25 seconds.
When you get supply blocked as Terran it hurts the most because your production has to be constant and regular to be optimal; plus Supply depots take 30 seconds, and Terran's production punishes banking (you can queue units but it does not solve the problem of your delayed cycles of production, it just artificially lowers the resources displayed). Assuming you have 50 energy at that moment with one of your OCs you can use a Supply drop, true, but of course this is suboptimal compared to using a MULE, and your production cycles are still messed up if they take more than 8 supply.
On February 07 2013 14:02 ZenithM wrote:
I mostly agree, but be careful when citing Lings of Liberty. It's a weird fake pseudo-reverse anti-balance whine thing (that is to say that nobody knows if it's full-on trolling or not, because some parts are reasonable and others are ridiculous). The article drew out massive Terran complains and agreeing nods, while mods and power users were mocking them for not understanding the "humor". Really a trash OP if I ever saw one, but nobody could say so because the guy who posted is apparently also a mod/power user. In short, Terran agreed, Zergs tried to defend themselves, and mods were like "Hahaha, dumbasses, you got trolled, Ver is so funny, hahaha". Not a very good source.
I was referring to the analytical parts about Zerg, which are spot-on; though satirical, the article was definitely not 100% trolling (see here).
|
On February 07 2013 23:18 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 23:02 Jerubaal wrote:On February 07 2013 16:11 BlackPanther wrote:On February 07 2013 15:39 Pursuit_ wrote:On February 07 2013 14:32 Wingblade wrote:
On the last episode of thePulse from NASL in part 4, the second half of that discusses the January winrates in Korea, with this to say about the TvP winrates in Korea. Gretorp: "And in TvP?" Frodan: "Terran wins over 50 percent, 54 percent. So Terrans are beating Protoss." This is in Korea.
Yeah, I think Terran is generally favored in TvP if they can end the game or get a significant lead before 15 minutes or so. If Protoss and Terran enter the 15+ minute mark on even footing though, it becomes insanely hard for Terran to win. Thankfully doing damage / punishing greedy Protoss is a lot easier than doing the same vZ. Currently in HotS, Terran is terrible early game vs protoss. Protoss has a shit ton amount of new all-ins and early game harass options thanks to the DT buff and the oracle. The mothership core can easily deny early game pushes like the two-rax and help defend from drop play with the time warp. Terrans, on the other hand, are left with hellbat drops. Good. That's exactly what has to happen. A huge problem with Protoss is that they are incredibly predictable. The flipside to that is that Terran has a lot more options late game now. Ravens are better, BC's are now a viable option that I've seen pros use, and the medivac upgrades make medivacs very strong. Even more important for Terran is that they now are completely unpredicatble it seems, so many things come out of 1 fact that predicting their next move is a lot harder, making the game more exciting to watch. I definitely don't think terran is screwed past 15 though.
Huh? BCs are effectively heavily nerfed in HotS compared to WoL vs toss. And medivac upgrades? You mean the emergency thrusters or however they call it now. Nice but not earth shattering late game.
|
I agree that warpgate units are super strong. Zealots with charge is really strong. And you can warp them anywhere given pylon is placed. I do not agree that warpgate units are weaker than barracks units.
There are plenty of players (as TheDwf pointed out) that use warpgate units far into late game. But they still win. 3 Bunkers is not enough at all.
|
On February 07 2013 23:51 TheDwf wrote:[...] Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 14:02 ZenithM wrote:
I mostly agree, but be careful when citing Lings of Liberty. It's a weird fake pseudo-reverse anti-balance whine thing (that is to say that nobody knows if it's full-on trolling or not, because some parts are reasonable and others are ridiculous). The article drew out massive Terran complains and agreeing nods, while mods and power users were mocking them for not understanding the "humor". Really a trash OP if I ever saw one, but nobody could say so because the guy who posted is apparently also a mod/power user. In short, Terran agreed, Zergs tried to defend themselves, and mods were like "Hahaha, dumbasses, you got trolled, Ver is so funny, hahaha". Not a very good source. I was referring to the analytical parts about Zerg, which are spot-on; though satirical, the article was definitely not 100% trolling (see here).
Nice to see that he clarified his position at least. I wasn't very sure, because higher ups were roughly calling it a hilarious trolling post. But yeah, some parts were a bit too true 
|
When I play terran I do follow the Blizzard path (i.e. "Terran has to do damage early/mid game").
I find PvT pretty cool - I usually put some heavy pressure (2rax marauder expand) and try to see what happens.
In most cases the P goes for some early expansion and then it is down to micro - depending on how good P's control is he can either die horribly or shut down my attack completely and win himself the game.
Most likely the game goes on - either into macro mode or some kind of toss 1-base counter all-in (warpgate, 5g zealot-archon, DTs, 3g robo etc). The counter is pretty strong and I often lose to it, but it is fine. I have the feeling that if I defend correctly I may just as well hold.
The bottom line is: the early-pressure applied does affect the flow and the outcome of the game. This means that by playing my way I can delay the dreaded terran vs AoE phase of the game for a couple of minutes and have some more fun. And this is a good thing.
When I play vs zerg I feel hopeless - the things I do just do not matter. Free scouting, queen-based defence, spines+transfuse - all of this make the games rather stupid. I just don't get that feeling that tells me: "ok, it is the time to micro our hearts out and the better man will come out ahead". Contrary, I have a feeling that zergies do have a pretty much perfect composition against anything I can throw at them early game. The only option I have is to attack and wait for the Z to screw up. Sometimes it works, most times it fails - either one does not feel really satisfactory.
I have bad feelings about Terran and HotS - I'm afraid that PvT will become just like ZvT - there will be no reasonable way of stopping down the tech and economy and the late game will be just remain an AoE fest as it is now.
I don't like the idea of a macro-based turtle terran, building up a late-game army that can be barely controlled well enough not to die to mass AoE. Add to that non-existent comeback potential for some more frustration. And I'm afraid this is the way we're heading.
If it goes this way I'll switch... or just as well it may mean bye-bye starcraft.
|
Bye bye Starcraft (2, anyway) is the smart man's play given current evidence.
|
They could just balance it with longer hatch time and longer warp in time or warp in cool down.
|
I think people should learn a lot about the history of broodwar and starcraft 2 before writing such posts (or any other related to balance issues).
Starcraft Broodwar was considered imbalanced for a long time untill players found ways to simply simplyfy the answer to those imbalances, therefore making the game more balanced ( This does not mean each race requires the same set of mind and skill but rather that each race required a certain way to play).
Even today, broodawr is belived to be imbalanced, but there have been figured out so many ways to tip those into your own favour or the other way around, that an "imbalanced" strategy is now more considered a form of cheese (since its abused and very good players deal with it relativly easy).
Sc2 is harder in this regard (balance) since 2 much of the game is made more automatic, meaning that higher skill does not translate as well as it did in broodwar where the units AI was significantly worse.
In Starcraft 2, no ammount of micro will maange to kill 3 immortals with 6 stalkers (unless your opponened dosent micro at all), where as in broodwar, 5 dragoons could ver well beat 4 siege tanks if they were caught unsiged at the rigth moment (same happens to siege tanks in sc2, but those who played both games, know the mechanic is far different).
Eventually, one race will settle itself over the rest for a longer period of time (over 1 year of non stop winning 80% of all RO32 qualifiers) and thats when we know we need to change something.
If you remember the GSL from its 1st edition, you will know that the race domination has been changsing all the time, just it takes more time now since less things are to be found out (any of you remmber how Morrow played reapers vs zerg?! Try that now vs a Top Tier Zerg....).
The main issue i have with sc2 is that the unit counters are way too heavy, making build order wins or loss the most common result.
I personally dont want to play a game where games could be based upon getting lucky, or where playing vs a maphacker (a good player and maphacker as well i mean), will get you almsot an automatic loss.
This is the main reason i keep playing broodwar as my "challenge game" and sc2 as my team games for having fun when im tired.
Please bare in mind this is my view, not a fact, so dont get angry if you dont see things the same way, just means we are not alike .
|
brood war imbalanced? ok...
|
On February 08 2013 01:24 CCa1ss1e wrote:
brood war imbalanced? ok...
Brood war was balanced by maps mainly. If you think BW was balanced on all maps, then I don't know what to say.
|
On February 07 2013 23:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 13:31 Scootaloo wrote:
For instance, to take the first balance argument in his post, basically a whine about how protoss is OP because they can warp and terran can't, completely forgetting that protoss warpgate units are weaker to compensate for this. Funny how you call me idiot while you completely missed the point; not once in my post did I say that Protoss was “OP” because of Warpgate. I said that the production asymmetry makes Protoss more forgiving than Terran, because in lategame (not only in lategame actually, but this is the phase in which the issue is the most obvious) Protoss usually gets several chances while Terran rarely has a second opportunity. Protoss Warpgate units are weaker? Weaker than what? Weaker than what they could be if Warpgate did not exist? Sure, but it does not matter since this would be another game; it's like saying, “Oh, Marines and Hellions would have to be weaker if Terran could produce them 3 at a time with Reactors”. Yep, but it's irrelevant, because the units' statistics are supposed to match their “producibility” and thus are (supposed to be) centered around the current production factors, i. e. Warpgate being available the whole game after you search it and Reactors doubling, not tripling the production. Or maybe you're referring to the common fallacy that “Gateway units are weak,” full stop? If Gateway units are weak why do Terrans need to make 3 Bunkers against 4/5g pressure to barely survive? If Gateway units are weak why is it a common sight to see 6/7g bulldoze their way through 4-5 Bunkers like it's no problem? Why does a build like 1 gate double expand → 8g even exist? If Gateway units are weak why do players like PartinG sometimes play full Gateway (except Observers but let us admit they don't have tremendous dps), not even starting Colossi before their fourth? Surely Terrans should be able to bash such a shameful weakness? Or maybe PartinG is clueless and does not understand what the average joe knows since 2010, that “Gateway units are weak because of Warpgate” (so play Stargate I guess?). Just because the efficiency of unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries drastically decreases when Terran gets critical mass of MMM does not mean they're “weak;” it means superior technology prevails, which is working as intended (strongly baiting the “lol but then why Terrans still win with tier1 Mariners since 2010” idiotic argument here, please come and get some). By the way Archons and HTs are Gateway units too and they're not weak at all, Charge Zealots are very strong (insanely strong with the upgrade advantage, which occurs very often in midgame) and Blink Stalkers provide great utility; just because they lack the raw dps of other units does not make them “weak” at all. Dark Templars are very weak in direct fights but we know they have other uses.
Holy shit, are you actually this stupid?
You might not have literally stated protoss was OP because of warpgate, but you did make a long list of all the reasons you think protoss is better then terran, or as we call it, a balance whine.
I make an entire post about how the whole balance discussion means nothing because none of the examples given by either side of the argument proclude eachother. And what you respond to is the example I give to show how incredibly stupid and unconstructive balance discussions actually are, and treat it like it's a balance argument.
Bravo, major godamn bravo for so epically missing the point.
I'll try one more time, in the hope you understand what I'm getting at, and if you don't, god help you.
Let's take your argument of "If Gateway units are weak why do Terrans need to make 3 Bunkers against 4/5g pressure to barely survive?If Gateway units are weak why is it a common sight to see 6/7g bulldoze their way through 4-5 Bunkers like it's no problem? Why does a build like 1 gate double expand → 8g even exist?"
What this paragraph tries to do is prove warpgate units are actually really strong because it is used in push x, y and z and player A uses them a lot.
This completely misses the obvious counters that the warpgate function is the reason the pushes work, that player A might have extreme experience with these tactics due a proffesional training schedule.
Ok, now, before you go frothing at the mouth again, I am not trying to prove these things I just said are true, quite frankly, I don't give a shit.
I'm trying to show you that just like your reply just now did not invalidate my earlier claim (which, again, was not even to be taken seriously), my claims here don't invalidate your arguments, they can both be true, and at the end of the day say nothing meaningfull about balance.
These "Proofs" you're giving are not proof of jack shit, just your personal perception of the game, hence why these discussions are always such massive clusterfucks and get closed quickly, I have no idea why mods havn't jumped on it yet, if it was a zerg or toss balance whine thread it would've been closed weeks ago.
Also, as we've learned from earlier imbalance, Blizzard doesn't use forumposts to balance, they have their own statistics for that, and guess what, they don't show this imbalance you keep crying about, in Korea terran is actually winning 54% of it's TvP's.
But whatever, if you wanna keep raging about how your losses must be due to imbalance, be my guest, try not to pop a fuse.
Edit: God, how did I miss this gem:
On February 07 2013 16:51 run.at.me wrote:
You know what's funny my brother wrote this thread and has never played random only Terran.
He whines imba everyday, I'm actually impressed and proud at his ability to troll hundreds of people into a balance discussion.
g
g
|
United States1806 Posts
On February 07 2013 23:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 13:31 Scootaloo wrote:
For instance, to take the first balance argument in his post, basically a whine about how protoss is OP because they can warp and terran can't, completely forgetting that protoss warpgate units are weaker to compensate for this. Funny how you call me idiot while you completely missed the point; not once in my post did I say that Protoss was “OP” because of Warpgate. I said that the production asymmetry makes Protoss more forgiving than Terran, because in lategame (not only in lategame actually, but this is the phase in which the issue is the most obvious) Protoss usually gets several chances while Terran rarely has a second opportunity. Protoss Warpgate units are weaker? Weaker than what? Weaker than what they could be if Warpgate did not exist? Sure, but it does not matter since this would be another game; it's like saying, “Oh, Marines and Hellions would have to be weaker if Terran could produce them 3 at a time with Reactors”. Yep, but it's irrelevant, because the units' statistics are supposed to match their “producibility” and thus are (supposed to be) centered around the current production factors, i. e. Warpgate being available the whole game after you search it and Reactors doubling, not tripling the production. Or maybe you're referring to the common fallacy that “Gateway units are weak,” full stop? If Gateway units are weak why do Terrans need to make 3 Bunkers against 4/5g pressure to barely survive? If Gateway units are weak why is it a common sight to see 6/7g bulldoze their way through 4-5 Bunkers like it's no problem? Why does a build like 1 gate double expand → 8g even exist? If Gateway units are weak why do players like PartinG sometimes play full Gateway (except Observers but let us admit they don't have tremendous dps), not even starting Colossi before their fourth? Surely Terrans should be able to bash such a shameful weakness? Or maybe PartinG is clueless and does not understand what the average joe knows since 2010, that “Gateway units are weak because of Warpgate” (so play Stargate I guess?). Just because the efficiency of unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries drastically decreases when Terran gets critical mass of MMM does not mean they're “weak;” it means superior technology prevails, which is working as intended (strongly baiting the “lol but then why Terrans still win with tier1 Mariners since 2010” idiotic argument here, please come and get some). By the way Archons and HTs are Gateway units too and they're not weak at all, Charge Zealots are very strong (insanely strong with the upgrade advantage, which occurs very often in midgame) and Blink Stalkers provide great utility; just because they lack the raw dps of other units does not make them “weak” at all. Dark Templars are very weak in direct fights but we know they have other uses. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote:
The biggest problem I had in what he said is he just pointed out the fundamentals of Zerg and Protoss and used very specific pro game examples to prove that Protoss and Zerg are forgiving. The ability to repair or lift buildings is not meaningless but doesn't shape the game in the same way as Zerg being able to produce 5, 10, 15, 26 Drones at once while the other races can usually produce 3 workers simultaneously at most, or Protoss being able to produce Gateway units anywhere as long as they have Psi there. The Broodlords/Infestors issue exists because of Zerg's production while Battlecruisers/Ravens is seen maybe 1 out of 500 games (statistics courtesy of rdmstats.net) precisely because of Terran's production. Terran and Protoss have armies which can challenge Broodlords/Corruptors/Infestors, but it barely matters because it takes 10 extra minuts and expensive infrastructure to get them while Broodlords can knock at your door at 16' – 17'. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote:
The same thing can be done for Terran. I can't count the number of times Terran got behind and they pulled SCVs and were able to pull off a victory because of mules (Tear vs Yoda is the most recent example I can think of). You mean the Icarus game in which YoDa has to overcommit to defend Immortal pressure, then is forced to all-in because meanwhile Tear took his third and teched hard, and only succeeds because Tear eagerly throws himself into the battle instead of stalling if only 30 seconds and auto-winning? Yes MULEs are stupid. It's dumb that a race can have a decent income, even if only temporarily, while having virtually no workers. But why do MULEs exist? Production asymmetry once again. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 13:45 Emzeeshady wrote:
How about in the early game were 1 misplaced queen/spine crawler/evo chamber can mean game over? Really? First, Zerg doesn't lose because a 4 Hellions runby kills 7-8 Drones; second this is not race-specific since Terran misplacing/not raising a wall can lose to Zergling raids too, and Protoss can lose with FFE against Zerg too if their wall is not complete (HerO vs Targa, Cloud Kingdom, Dreamhack Valencia 2012). Ah, supply blocks. When you get supply blocked as Zerg it hurts, but larvae are still there after the supply block is ended and Overlords take 25 seconds; plus you can make them without watching your base. When you get supply blocked as Protoss it hurts, but at least you can instantly have a round of warp-ins once the supply block is gone, and units are expensive so assuming you don't lack Gateways you can quickly deplete any banked resources; Protoss' production is not as regular as Terran's cycles-wise. Pylons take 25 seconds. When you get supply blocked as Terran it hurts the most because your production has to be constant and regular to be optimal; plus Supply depots take 30 seconds, and Terran's production punishes banking (you can queue units but it does not solve the problem of your delayed cycles of production, it just artificially lowers the resources displayed). Assuming you have 50 energy at that moment with one of your OCs you can use a Supply drop, true, but of course this is suboptimal compared to using a MULE, and your production cycles are still messed up if they take more than 8 supply. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 14:02 ZenithM wrote:
I mostly agree, but be careful when citing Lings of Liberty. It's a weird fake pseudo-reverse anti-balance whine thing (that is to say that nobody knows if it's full-on trolling or not, because some parts are reasonable and others are ridiculous). The article drew out massive Terran complains and agreeing nods, while mods and power users were mocking them for not understanding the "humor". Really a trash OP if I ever saw one, but nobody could say so because the guy who posted is apparently also a mod/power user. In short, Terran agreed, Zergs tried to defend themselves, and mods were like "Hahaha, dumbasses, you got trolled, Ver is so funny, hahaha". Not a very good source. I was referring to the analytical parts about Zerg, which are spot-on; though satirical, the article was definitely not 100% trolling (see here).
Your argument about Terran having to build all those bunkers is extremely flawed because a Protoss who invests into 4/5g pressure has vastly superior production to a Terran player teching in a standard fashion. Most of the time those three bunkers are barely filled at all so that you have 12-16 marines fighting against 12-16 Protoss gateway units and still holding. It's not becuase Protoss gateway units are good, its because there's so many more of them. Likewise with a six or seven gate all-in, its an all-in and the Protoss has to overwhelm with production at a specific timing, or they lose the game to MMM. That's also why you sometime see Terran instantly sac their natural, wait at the top of their ramp for stim + medivacs, move out and crush the unupgraded Protoss.
Protoss gateway units are bad, but those pressures work simply because Protoss builds the extra production to simply overwhelm the unupgraded bio in small numbers.
|
On February 08 2013 01:29 vthree wrote:Brood war was balanced by maps mainly. If you think BW was balanced on all maps, then I don't know what to say.
vouch. just think of maps like tears of the moon or battle royale. or think of lost temple 3 o'clock T vs 12 o'clock Z.....
the reason bw could be balanced by mapmakers, however, was that no more balance patches came from blizzard and that the core mechanics of the game were balanced enough on a wide enough range of maps.
in sc2, by contrast, a perfectly fine tvz matchup was completely flipped on its head and pushed into imbalance by the queen range buff. and here again, the mere fact that this little change could have such an impact on the game is a sign that the core mechanics of sc2 are not yet balanced enough to leave the balancing job to mapmakers.
|
On February 08 2013 01:21 iloveav wrote:
The main issue i have with sc2 is that the unit counters are way too heavy, making build order wins or loss the most common result.
While I agree a 100% with the former I think the latter is a huge overexaggeration. nevertheless, I do wish sc2 was a bit less about units hard countering each other.
|
United States1806 Posts
On February 08 2013 00:11 llIH wrote:
I agree that warpgate units are super strong. Zealots with charge is really strong. And you can warp them anywhere given pylon is placed. I do not agree that warpgate units are weaker than barracks units.
There are plenty of players (as TheDwf pointed out) that use warpgate units far into late game. But they still win. 3 Bunkers is not enough at all.
This post, killed my soul(Idra quote ftw). Zealots can't simply be endlessly cited by conc shells anymore? Working as intended.
Then you state that warpgate units are used well into the lategame. You mean my T1 upgraded units can be used lategame just like Terran marines and zerglings? Working as intended.
Your last sentence is completely out of place and has no context. What isnt three bunkers enough to do? There's no context in your post but based on what I've read from other I assume your talking about gateway allins. Vastly superior Protoss production which is building more expensive units in higher numbers beats unupgraded bio in a small timing window before the bio gets stim pack? Working as intended.
|
On February 08 2013 01:47 Wingblade wrote:
Your argument about Terran having to build all those bunkers is extremely flawed because a Protoss who invests into 4/5g pressure has vastly superior production to a Terran player teching in a standard fashion. Most of the time those three bunkers are barely filled at all so that you have 12-16 marines fighting against 12-16 Protoss gateway units and still holding. It's not becuase Protoss gateway units are good, its because there's so many more of them. Likewise with a six or seven gate all-in, its an all-in and the Protoss has to overwhelm with production at a specific timing, or they lose the game to MMM. That's also why you sometime see Terran instantly sac their natural, wait at the top of their ramp for stim + medivacs, move out and crush the unupgraded Protoss.
Protoss gateway units are bad, but those pressures work simply because Protoss builds the extra production to simply overwhelm the unupgraded bio in small numbers.
This means they are good enough. They are good enough to hold off any aggression T can throw at P in a defensive stance. Also, if the toss chooses to be aggressive he has a fair number of options. I have seen countless games where pro players died to things like 3-gate pressure, 1-gate-expand-into-4gate attack, 6/7-gate and the like.
Yes, these if you fail a heavy gateway attack you are behind or dead. Yes, in some cases they need to do a ton of damage - but guess what. That is something you must factor in when you are playing aggressively.
I just can't see how good should an unit be so that a failed heavy pressure (or a failed all-in) does not put you behind.
|
On February 08 2013 02:04 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 01:21 iloveav wrote:
The main issue i have with sc2 is that the unit counters are way too heavy, making build order wins or loss the most common result.
While I agree a 100% with the former I think the latter is a huge overexaggeration. nevertheless, I do wish sc2 was a bit less about units hard countering each other.
This is more to do with smooth AI than unit design.
Lots of heavy counters in BW too--but good luck getting them up the ramp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
