|
On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:On May 12 2013 03:16 Chocobo wrote:
[quote]
Other than broodlords, what is cost efficient against mines for zerg? 1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....) 2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ... Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself. The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:On May 12 2013 03:20 Whitewing wrote:
Be very careful about changing TvZ even if you conclude it is imbalanced. Right now at the highest level, it's the most engaging and exciting matchup to watch. The entire matchup frequently turns into a super long push from terran trying to break zerg while zerg tries to throw the push back one time, with both players micro'ing their faces off to try to be efficient. It's incredibly interesting to watch how they try to out control one another with constant battles and counter attacks. The wrong buff to zerg or nerf to terran could ruin that kind of push and send us back to both players maxxing out before doing anything.
TBH, I think the main problem is that zergs let terrans be too greedy and don't punish it. I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well.
Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable.
And reading this page I again wonder how it comes the Code S RO8 has only 2 terrans, considering we only have to do hellbat drops. They are always cost effective, so just send out 5 and every terran wins! Sadly it doesn't work that way, but it is nice to keep thinking it. Also @ not being able to micro against hellbats. That possibly explains alot that people die horribly to them, you have to micro against them.
|
On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote:
OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm.
|
I'm so so sick of ZvZ 
Just make fungal instant again in ZvZ , sounds stupid ur being different for 1 match up .... But honestly , I miss concaves and real engagements ..... We have to watch pro ZvZ ..... Ends 1 way 90% of the time .... Some muta war .... So so boring ...
|
i guess this change is a nerf against Leenock
|
I agree. Instant fungal would make ZvZ so much better and really not effect other matchups that much. A little, for sure, but not brokenly so. Terran and Protoss both have much better army compositions in HotS to the point that infestors with instafungal are really not that scary anymore, especially considering the damage nerf compared to WoL. ZvP, Protoss can lol infestor broodlord compositions. For ZvT, It takes like 17 fungals to kill medivacs and that's rarely seen indeed with the speed boost. So bio only styles might be a little weaker to infestors, but with hellbats, free siege for tanks and widow mines being what they are, I'm not sure terran would be underpowered vs zerg.
|
On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote:
All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue.
Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand.
Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original?
I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later.
|
Maybe PvZ would get away with it. Non-instant fungal was mainly good for blink stalkers, but I guess toss air, and especially tempests, deals with the broodlords.
However TvZ would be walk in the park for zerg once they get infestors out. Right now I already think zerg would do alot better if they start using infestors again. But with instafungal they will melt away. And the mech alternative hasn't become better with vipers.
@Zanzabar, I am masters terran on EU and don't have any issues defending hellbat drops on my level. Sure sometimes I die to them, just like sometimes I died to hellion drops. It is just a matter of investing a bit in defense. And you nicely describe the toss problem, they don't like making units that aren't optimal in their deathball.
Even with those super OP hellbats that easily wins every game for terrans since they are always devastating terran isn't better than other races. So which boosts do you propose to compensate for your nerfs?
Edit: Once in a while I spice things up by doing hellbat drops myself, but must my opponents can also deal with them fine.
|
On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:On May 12 2013 03:21 Rabiator wrote:
[quote]
1. Spore and Spine Crawlers for the early game ... (They are even good against Hellbat drops since neither of these dies easily to the "vs light" damage and the Medivac dies faster ... which prevents its reuse. Spore Crawlers are great against Phoenix and Oracle too ....)
2. Sending in Overlords to soak up the shots right before your charge ...
Just watch a few TvZ games with early harrassment and IMO it is always the "diehard oldschoolers" who try to defend against Hellbat harrassment with Zerglings who are losing the match while the ones who build static defenses seem to be fine. That might be a misperception on my part, but I would suggest you check for yourself.
The whole point of HotS seems to be "more harrassment" ... Hellbat, Oracle, Mutalisk regen, Medivac speed, Widow Mine, ... so preparing for that is a requirement and not optional now IMO. Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective. I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:On May 12 2013 04:48 Ramiz1989 wrote:
[quote]
I kind of agree if they opened with Hellions/Reapers etc. however, you can't always punish it, and it is a lot harder if they opened with 1-2 Siege Tanks(which some of them are doing, mind you) or Mines. It also depends on the map a lot. Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener. /edit When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable.
It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do".
If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches.
The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts.
Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you.
|
On May 13 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:On May 12 2013 03:41 Zarahtra wrote:
[quote]
Also 2x +3 attack upgrade blings kill a mine(that is less than +3 armor upgrade) which I'd argue isn't that cost inefficient for a zerg(100/50 vs 75/25). It is really obnoxious when a zerg sends 2x blings ontop of a widow mine and blows it up, but terrans quite often in a hurry burry 2x next to each other, so atleast those times it is cost effective.
I see it as a great way for a zerg to keep the amount of widow mines on the field in control, rather than letting it spiral. So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase. That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this: 1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts 2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up. On May 12 2013 04:51 plogamer wrote:
[quote]
Or Idra's super greedy opener versus Polt could also be the correct response when scouting 3 cc opener.
/edit
When it comes to greed, I don't think any race can top the Zerg race. I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy. I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...). Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed. The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind. But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins. And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable. It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you.
Besides that you completely ignore my point, that for zerg it is way more important to get used to enemies timings due to their production nature, reactive play definately is not always the case. Often it is a good idea to force the enemy to react to your play, not the other way around. And if you do for example a proxy oracle opening you really aren't reacting to anything the enemy does.
|
On May 13 2013 16:41 Sissors wrote:
Maybe PvZ would get away with it. Non-instant fungal was mainly good for blink stalkers, but I guess toss air, and especially tempests, deals with the broodlords.
However TvZ would be walk in the park for zerg once they get infestors out. Right now I already think zerg would do alot better if they start using infestors again. But with instafungal they will melt away. And the mech alternative hasn't become better with vipers.
@Zanzabar, I am masters terran on EU and don't have any issues defending hellbat drops on my level. Sure sometimes I die to them, just like sometimes I died to hellion drops. It is just a matter of investing a bit in defense. And you nicely describe the toss problem, they don't like making units that aren't optimal in their deathball.
Even with those super OP hellbats that easily wins every game for terrans since they are always devastating terran isn't better than other races. So which boosts do you propose to compensate for your nerfs?
Edit: Once in a while I spice things up by doing hellbat drops myself, but must my opponents can also deal with them fine.
I don't doubt Terran can deal with them a lot easier than a toss can. Stim marine marauder handles hellbats and medivacs just fine. The DPS of terran bio is much higher and can kill these drops before they have the opportunity to do damage. Stimmed marine marauder is also much more mobile. Also, missle turrets are 100 minerals and do 27 dps as opposed to the 16 of a 150 mineral cannon, which makes aiding in disposing of the medivac dropping and healing much easier and cheaper.
|
I think they should give a bigger damage bonus against Biological unit types to the Spore Crawler and increase its cost. You had to build an Evolution Chamber in WoL to be able to make Spore Crawlers, which means a better utility for it. On the other hand, most of the contemporary strategies for ZvP and ZvT already consist on going early Evolution Chambers, so I am not really certain if that would be a big deal.
|
On May 13 2013 16:50 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:On May 12 2013 08:11 Big J wrote:
[quote]
So, just to be clear: I don't think there is any imbalance in the matchup overall, but I do believe that ling/bling/muta (even if you manage to upgrade 3-3+cracklings, 3-0 AND even with small infestor support) can't fight against marine/medivac/mine (or hellbat/tank/marauder variations) and you have to go ultras/broodlords to win after the early 3base Terran phase.
That being said, it's not good to trade banes vs mines like that. The equation goes basically like this:
1) marines > lings, mutas, roaches, hydras, queens, swarm hosts
2) marines < banelings, ultralisks, huge infestor count, huge broodlord count
Basically, all you want to do as a Terran in those engagements is kill as many banelings efficiently or in equal trades as you can before they touch marines. The rest is just a mob up.
[quote]
I disagree. When zerg is greedy, zerg gets more mining earlier but no tech at all. When Terran is greedy, they still get their full tech tree much earlier and still have the same amount of CCs, but terran only needs to defend a single entrance (compared to two for outdoor basing zerg). Both races have their ups and downs when playing greedy.
I agree with Whitewing on that matter. People should roach rush the fuck out of Terrans. Soulkey, Roro, Symbol and Kangho all have been roach rushing, baneling busting and nydusing their way into Ro8 against Terrans this GSL. Shine made it far similarily (those games against Fantasy...).
Life, BBong, DRG, Hyun tried to play macrogames and got destroyed.
The macro-metagame right now is very simple. Terrans build 3CCs, double ebays, a few hellions/reapers and go into mass reactored barracks+stim/shields and reactored widow mines/medivacs. Before 9-10mins, a Terran won't have any defences down apart from the hellions and a handful of widow mines/marines. On the flip side, a zerg invests into multiple queens, speed, speedlings, sometimes roaches/defenses relatively early without there even being any actual thread apart from those few hellions/reapers and just falls behind.
But if you just blindly allin with roaches, a Terran often won't even have the production to react to anything you do because that build can't really produce anything that does not come from a reactored factory, before 9-10mins.
And if a Terran even goes more greedy (like instead of defensive mines, even drops mines/hellbats early with this or gets his upgrades even faster or even more barracks early on, or just 4hellions), it's just a freewin, even if you just put on some semiallinish roach aggression with a third behind it, or a really late roach allin that hits at 10+mins. The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable. It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you. Besides that you completely ignore my point, that for zerg it is way more important to get used to enemies timings due to their production nature, reactive play definately is not always the case. Often it is a good idea to force the enemy to react to your play, not the other way around. And if you do for example a proxy oracle opening you really aren't reacting to anything the enemy does.
Why is it more important? Watch Life and others that emulate his playstyle. You get an early speed nearly no matter what and then you build a lot of zerglings, nearly no matter what. If your opponent attacks you have speedzerglings to defend, if your opponent does not attack, he has either invested into units that you pinned in his base or he hasn't invested into units and you do damage. You can try to play such playstyles that completly force what the opponent is doing. WoL ZvP and TvP were both of such kind, where you often could press an opponent into his base all game long and the only thing he was allowed to do was to play like one big allin/timing. Similar gameplay is still possible in ZvP and you can still try to play that way at least early on in TvZ (mostly by taking mapcontrol and destroying hellions). I'd even go so far to say that due to zergs mapcontrol nature and by their huge capability to switch production, it's more often than not the opponents burden to react properly. And I believe a lot of whining against mines/drop in TvZ currently comes from the fact that playing zerg does not feel so much like playing zerg, as you can't roam the map easily and as the Terran does this very zergy "rally until one of use dies" play him/herself.
And generally, you can't/don't postpone your whole production to the point where you see an opponent move out. Yes, producing the right things at the right time is a huge part of zerg gameplay. Terrans have to move out at the right time and drop at the right time and I can easily come up with enemies moves that completly mess with what you'd probably call "nonreactive standard moveouts" (like medivac moutout in TvP, hellions in TvZ) and where you absolutly should react to what your opponent is doing by not even trying to go for those builds.
Again: reaction=/=building something. If you drop because you scouted certain techs that are bad against drops, that's reactionary play. If you take a base, because your opponent does not mass units currently, you are reacting to what he does...
|
Vatican City State431 Posts
I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything.
|
On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote:
All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later.
Hellbat drops in TvT are really easy to hold, and I'm 100% sure they will disappear soon. If you know how to counter them (hellion marine viking with micro) you just roflstomp the opponent who does them.
In TvP and TvZ a hellbat nerf would be a disaster. Unless they nerf the cargospace again to 1 hellbat for 1 medivac. But a damage / range nerf to the hellbat would be really sad. TvP mech would become even more dead. TvZ would be MMMM only. Now we can chose between MMM tank or MMM mine or MMM hellbat. I like it that way.
|
On May 13 2013 17:14 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:50 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 08:50 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
The only thing I want to add to this is the fact that, while having access to the tech, Terran can't utilize it in quite the explosive nature that Zerg (and even Protoss) can, nor is it as central of a role in winning. The only upgrade/tech that plays a huge, instant role is stim, and maybe combat shields and a tank. Having a starport or being able to produce hellbats isn't going to change the game when the first unit rolls out, unlike finishing a spire or making that first colossus (with range). I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment. Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable. It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you. Besides that you completely ignore my point, that for zerg it is way more important to get used to enemies timings due to their production nature, reactive play definately is not always the case. Often it is a good idea to force the enemy to react to your play, not the other way around. And if you do for example a proxy oracle opening you really aren't reacting to anything the enemy does. And generally, you can't/don't postpone your whole production to the point where you see an opponent move out.
And now you say yourself exactly why zerg requires more time to adapt to a new metagame, you can't postpone production until your opponent moves out, then you are too late. You postpone it till a little bit before he moves out, and that simply takes time before zerg know how long they postpone it.
Sure everyone always has to react to what an enemy does, but for zerg it is simply alot more important to know when an enemy will probably move out, depending on his build. Yes all races have it, but not all races have it to the level of zerg.
If I look in a TvZ to the army supply, my supply will continiously increase, I need to use those production facilities. So for me it really is not a big deal if zerg attacks a bit earlier than I expected. I have a bit less then, and he has a bit less because he attacks earlier.
However now look at the zerg army supply. Generally it is close to zero, with only some lings and queens, while my army supply is way more. But right before I move out zerg switches to military production and suddenly his army supply spikes, and he can defend my attack even though a minute before that I literally had 3-4 times the army supply he had.
Automatically that also means that any error in the zergs estimation of when I will attack can be devastating, if he thinks I would attack a minute later he is outnumbered 3-4 to 1 in army units. Then they proceed complaining about terran being OP and that I am a noob.
And yeah later in the game that becomes less important since then zerg doesn't have to decide as much between drones and army. And of course it isn't only zerg who needs to know roughly what the opponent does, and yes also early game a zerg makes some army units. But you also have for example the same against toss immortal-all-ins. In the beginning all zerg had auto-loss against it, while now they do quite reasonable against it. And that isn't because of some fancy micro tricks, since zerg defense against immortal all-in is pretty much outnumbering the toss enough, it is largely because they now better know how long to drone and when to mass army.
|
On May 13 2013 15:37 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote:
OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm.
No one ever researches burrow and uses it in defense, so I doubt your assessment is as automatically true as you make it sound. You can get two Hydralisks for every Mutalisk (when you take the gas into account only) and they have a higher dps too per unit; another reason why I think your "that doesnt work" answer isnt that clear as you think.
In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary.
|
On May 13 2013 18:17 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote:
All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. Hellbat drops in TvT are really easy to hold, and I'm 100% sure they will disappear soon. If you know how to counter them (hellion marine viking with micro) you just roflstomp the opponent who does them. In TvP and TvZ a hellbat nerf would be a disaster. Unless they nerf the cargospace again to 1 hellbat for 1 medivac. But a damage / range nerf to the hellbat would be really sad. TvP mech would become even more dead. TvZ would be MMMM only. Now we can chose between MMM tank or MMM mine or MMM hellbat. I like it that way.
Personally I'm waiting for terrans to start mixing in blueflame hellions with their hellbat drops and mech styles. Two medivacs filled with 2 hellbats and 4 blueflame hellions would be kinda crazy. At the same time you wouldnt really need many more hellbats than you have medivacs when going mech either. The increased mobility from hellions would most likely be far better after a certain number.
The damage and range of a hellbat is also not the problem, they're just so god damn tanky. Unlike hellions, they can still kill quite a lot of workers while being shot at before they die or get picked up and boosted out. Even if you have a part of your army ready, you still have to pull your workers or expect quite a lot of them falling.
Rather than disappearing, I expect terrans to start using hellbat drops even when going bio. In a solid macrogame, a few un-upgraded hellbat drops here and there is a pretty small investment to make with a huge potential for damage. In combination with pressure from the front its even harder to handle. The "right amount" of units to defend the drop is simply unable to handle it in a time efficient manner.
|
They just need to nerf the mutalisk regen, which was an unnecessary buff to begin with. The speed is enough. Without the ridiculous muta regen it would help a lot.
|
China6329 Posts
How about removing Hellbat's bonus damage vs light and making blue flame work on Hellbats too which adds the +15 vs light bonus back?
TL;DR: Hellbat: 15 damage, blue flame Hellbat: 15 + 15 vs light. Hellions remain unchanged.
|
In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary.
So basically buffing the hydralisk would affect the other match up but nerfing the mutas would not ? Interesting.
IMO they should just go with increased attack to air only for hydras. Wouldn't affect ZvT and could help against air toss aswell.
Overall the spore buff just show they have no idea what current ZvZ is about. When you start attacking into spores you have most likely already won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
