|
On October 16 2013 02:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote:
I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units. Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
the question you and everyone who doesn´t understand, why mutalisks are such a problem for terran to deal with, should ask yourself is: why are only mutalisks such a problem? Noone complains about phoenixes or oracles, who are also high mobile flying harassment units.
The answer is simple: Mutalisks are the absolut harassment unit. They are completely well rounded. They are good at killing every kind of unit. From workers, to buildings of any kind, to expensive tech units of any kind. And this separates them from other harassment units, that are allways limited. Hellions only deal decent dps to light units as workers. Phoenixes can´t attack buildings at all, zerglings and zealots are easily blocked by walls and so on. Mutalisk harassment can hit you everywhere. It can hit you at your production, at your supply depots, at your worker lines, just everywhere. So in order to deal with them, you have to cover a big space. In addition damaging a mutalisk is no success at all, since the regeneration is too strong. You have to kill them, or you don´t achieve anything. Protoss were given better phoenixes to deal with them. terran.... got actually nothing. Packs of 3 widow mines? They have range 5, they cover way less than a chunk of turrets and cost 6 supply together. How big is your army supposed to be, if you cover your bases with more than 10 WM? Terran has no unit, that comes even close to match the mobility of a mutalisk and is able to fight it. So Terran has to zone them. But the regeneration makes zoning very costly. So the only solution is to force the mutalisks to be needed for defence. And that has been the strategy for all HotS long. But this Strategy is showing more and more weeknesses in the past months.
|
On October 16 2013 02:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote:
I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units. Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
This doesn't really work because the mines cost supply and gas, and the mutas regen so quick that once the mines pop the mutas back off a bit and heal and then come rape your base. Best case would be all three mines going off, but to do that you would need them close enough together that they wouldnt cover the whole base anyways. My options vs mutas these days seem limited to being out on the map by the time they pop so that Z cant break them off to attack me without dieing himself.
If I take the resources to properly secure the bases with turrets, then my max and expansions get slowed down to the point that Im trapped in my base anyways because by the time I have enough to move out Zerg has a far superior army and economy. And it takes a stupid amount of turrets to shut down a decent sized muta flock.
Edit: Guy above me posted as I was replying. He is totally right, but there is one other aspect he didn't mention that factors in, and thats massproduceability. Its hard for the other races to ramp out ridiculous amounts of units like phoeni or oracles or banshees, but zerg has 1 building hard tech shifts so all he needs is a single spire, not multiple other buildings (excepting the hatcheries, which Z builds anyways).
|
On October 16 2013 02:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote:
I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units. Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
Best case scenario is that two mines hit, which means you now got a flock of mutalisks - 2 in your base. With the range they have you need at least 3 groups in your main, and two per expansions. On 3 bases that is 42 supply gone. And they can probably just snipe all 3 mines without losing anything.
On October 16 2013 01:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:10 Lorch wrote:On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later. Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters. But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob. Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways. Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets. Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much? I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight. Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
No one complains you have to make 3 or more turrets. 3 or more turrets however don't do shit against mutalisk flocks. Sure if it is just delaying them a bit once and then you going on the offensive again some turrets help. But if you cannot be continiously attacking anymore then they have to do more than delay the mutas slightly, especially since there is nothing stopping the zerg from getting 20+ mutas.
In WoL days you were happy if your thor got of one or two shots on clumped up mutas, that was considered a win. In HotS no one cares since they regen it anyway. So 4-6 turrets + a thor is not going to save your ass, they just get more and more since they have their regen, and when they got enough they magic box the thor.
And then you say it is weird that people complain about a counterattack (why only counterattack and not regular attack? Or harrasment?) that the turret can fight? Lets say we make photon cannon only able to shoot zerglings. For 1 damage per shot, with current ROF. Then because photon cannons can only shoot zerglings protoss should be fine against zerglings?
Compared to WoL mutas got significantly more speed and regen. On the counter department terran got WMs. Which aren't that useful against their harrasment, but they allow an agressive playstyle. Now they want to nerf widow mines into the ground. Is it then really strange that WoL tactics won't cut it against mutas? Add a whole other bunch of nerfs to siege tank play against zerg (vipers, swarmhosts, ultralisks), and it suddenly makes sense why 10% ROF increase doesn't cut it...
|
On October 16 2013 04:49 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote:
I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units. Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines. Best case scenario is that two mines hit, which means you now got a flock of mutalisks - 2 in your base. With the range they have you need at least 3 groups in your main, and two per expansions. On 3 bases that is 42 supply gone. And they can probably just snipe all 3 mines without losing anything. Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 16 2013 01:10 Lorch wrote:On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later. Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters. But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob. Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways. Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets. Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much? I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight. Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it. No one complains you have to make 3 or more turrets. 3 or more turrets however don't do shit against mutalisk flocks. Sure if it is just delaying them a bit once and then you going on the offensive again some turrets help. But if you cannot be continiously attacking anymore then they have to do more than delay the mutas slightly, especially since there is nothing stopping the zerg from getting 20+ mutas. In WoL days you were happy if your thor got of one or two shots on clumped up mutas, that was considered a win. In HotS no one cares since they regen it anyway. So 4-6 turrets + a thor is not going to save your ass, they just get more and more since they have their regen, and when they got enough they magic box the thor. And then you say it is weird that people complain about a counterattack (why only counterattack and not regular attack? Or harrasment?) that the turret can fight? Lets say we make photon cannon only able to shoot zerglings. For 1 damage per shot, with current ROF. Then because photon cannons can only shoot zerglings protoss should be fine against zerglings? Compared to WoL mutas got significantly more speed and regen. On the counter department terran got WMs. Which aren't that useful against their harrasment, but they allow an agressive playstyle. Now they want to nerf widow mines into the ground. Is it then really strange that WoL tactics won't cut it against mutas? Add a whole other bunch of nerfs to siege tank play against zerg (vipers, swarmhosts, ultralisks), and it suddenly makes sense why 10% ROF increase doesn't cut it...
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
Currently Protoss make 1-3 cannons at their front against zerg, 1-2 cannons in their main and natural against terran and 2-4 cannons per expansion vs either race.
At 3 bases protoss already spends up to 1500 minerals not countiing pylons on cannons alone just to slow down zergling run by attacks. They also spend 300-600 minerals in the early game against terran just in case terran does medivac play and later on spend 300-450 minerals on cannons per base to slow down medivac play. This doesnt take into account pylons which will add anothr 200-300 per base except in PvZ where it will sometimes be an extra 400-500 per base on pylons alone.
So when protoss already has to use up 2000 or more minerals on cannons alone I have no idea why making turrets is such a big deal. Do you really expect that zerg spending 3000/3000 on his army should be stoppable by 300 minerals worth of turrets?
|
On October 16 2013 05:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
lots of mutas will snipe a couple of turrets much faster than a group of marines, and as each turret dies the DPS against the mutas instantly plummets. with marines you have to kill every marine essentially one by one which gives the marines more time to deal their dps before it disappears, and it's also more difficult for the zerg to judge how many muta he'll lose from the engagement, especially since marines can focus them
|
On October 16 2013 05:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 04:49 Sissors wrote:On October 16 2013 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote:
I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units. Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines. Best case scenario is that two mines hit, which means you now got a flock of mutalisks - 2 in your base. With the range they have you need at least 3 groups in your main, and two per expansions. On 3 bases that is 42 supply gone. And they can probably just snipe all 3 mines without losing anything. On October 16 2013 01:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 16 2013 01:10 Lorch wrote:On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks. Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines. But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later. Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters. But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob. Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways. Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets. Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much? I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight. Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it. No one complains you have to make 3 or more turrets. 3 or more turrets however don't do shit against mutalisk flocks. Sure if it is just delaying them a bit once and then you going on the offensive again some turrets help. But if you cannot be continiously attacking anymore then they have to do more than delay the mutas slightly, especially since there is nothing stopping the zerg from getting 20+ mutas. In WoL days you were happy if your thor got of one or two shots on clumped up mutas, that was considered a win. In HotS no one cares since they regen it anyway. So 4-6 turrets + a thor is not going to save your ass, they just get more and more since they have their regen, and when they got enough they magic box the thor. And then you say it is weird that people complain about a counterattack (why only counterattack and not regular attack? Or harrasment?) that the turret can fight? Lets say we make photon cannon only able to shoot zerglings. For 1 damage per shot, with current ROF. Then because photon cannons can only shoot zerglings protoss should be fine against zerglings? Compared to WoL mutas got significantly more speed and regen. On the counter department terran got WMs. Which aren't that useful against their harrasment, but they allow an agressive playstyle. Now they want to nerf widow mines into the ground. Is it then really strange that WoL tactics won't cut it against mutas? Add a whole other bunch of nerfs to siege tank play against zerg (vipers, swarmhosts, ultralisks), and it suddenly makes sense why 10% ROF increase doesn't cut it... Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks Currently Protoss make 1-3 cannons at their front against zerg, 1-2 cannons in their main and natural against terran and 2-4 cannons per expansion vs either race. At 3 bases protoss already spends up to 1500 minerals not countiing pylons on cannons alone just to slow down zergling run by attacks. They also spend 300-600 minerals in the early game against terran just in case terran does medivac play and later on spend 300-450 minerals on cannons per base to slow down medivac play. This doesnt take into account pylons which will add anothr 200-300 per base except in PvZ where it will sometimes be an extra 400-500 per base on pylons alone. So when protoss already has to use up 2000 or more minerals on cannons alone I have no idea why making turrets is such a big deal. Do you really expect that zerg spending 3000/3000 on his army should be stoppable by 300 minerals worth of turrets?
Are you really serious?
First of all I don't see many toss making 3 turrets at their front, except in unusual situations, all-in defense for example. But not in a regular game.
I am mainly surprised you act like toss spend more on static defense than terran. While terrans making turret rings is alot more normal to see than toss making cannon rings. And sure turrets are more effective than marines vs mutas, if they decide to attack into it. The problem is every sub-location you need to defend needs enough turrets to handle the entire muta flock. So in total you need to be able to kill the muta flock 10 times.
Looking at your last paragraph I can only conclude you are trolling. No one says you should stop it with 300 mineral, that is all from your fantasy. The issue is the amount of minerals you need to sink in turrets to make sure you are reasonably protected against mutas means you cannot do any agression. Which means the zerg is happily expanding and going for hive, and you die.
Btw if you want to look at who spends more on static defense, a planetary + two turrets is standard against toss just to have detection vs DTs. You should calculate how much PFs cost: Hint, alot.
|
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote:
Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote:
All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Oh, please. You are totally out of touch with being unbiased. The graduated damage output of the WM is brilliant/innovative. It rewards micro (moving farther from range) without strongly negating base damage.
Plus, it's a test map. If it's terribly, they'll change it.
|
@Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed.
Now @Thieving Magpie
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
Edit: I see this might be meant different, so lets summarize it only:
Missile turrets do roughly the same dps as (upgraded) marines per cost. They do have more range, health and are repairable. But they cannot move. So putting down 2 missile turrets does the same as 4 marines. How scared exactly would you be of 4 marines with your 20 mutas? Let me guess: Not really.
|
On October 16 2013 05:18 Sissors wrote:@Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed. Now @Thieving MagpieShow nested quote +Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks Edit: I see this might be meant different, so lets summarize it only: Missile turrets do roughly the same dps as (upgraded) marines per cost. They do have more range, health and are repairable. But they cannot move. So putting down 2 missile turrets does the same as 4 marines. How scared exactly would you be of 4 marines with your 20 mutas? Let me guess: Not really.
Maybe the best defense is Turrets + WM + Thor
WM forces muta to stack to snipe them
Thor do insane AOE damages to clumped muta
Turrets do just enough DPS to kill the remaining low hp mutalisks
: )
|
4713 Posts
On October 16 2013 06:02 Insoleet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 05:18 Sissors wrote:@Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed. Now @Thieving MagpieExcept turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks Edit: I see this might be meant different, so lets summarize it only: Missile turrets do roughly the same dps as (upgraded) marines per cost. They do have more range, health and are repairable. But they cannot move. So putting down 2 missile turrets does the same as 4 marines. How scared exactly would you be of 4 marines with your 20 mutas? Let me guess: Not really. Maybe the best defense is Turrets + WM + Thor WM forces muta to stack to snipe them Thor do insane AOE damages to clumped muta Turrets do just enough DPS to kill the remaining low hp mutalisks : )
And then the zerg realizes you have 10 to 20 supply in your base trying to defend against mutas, and moves them back to help his main army annihilate the terran army, yeah, brilliant idea!
|
On October 16 2013 06:02 Insoleet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 05:18 Sissors wrote:@Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed. Now @Thieving MagpieExcept turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks Edit: I see this might be meant different, so lets summarize it only: Missile turrets do roughly the same dps as (upgraded) marines per cost. They do have more range, health and are repairable. But they cannot move. So putting down 2 missile turrets does the same as 4 marines. How scared exactly would you be of 4 marines with your 20 mutas? Let me guess: Not really. Maybe the best defense is Turrets + WM + Thor WM forces muta to stack to snipe them Thor do insane AOE damages to clumped muta Turrets do just enough DPS to kill the remaining low hp mutalisks : )
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Missile_Turret
1 Missile turret has the DPS of 4 Marines (12x2@.86 attack speed vs 6@.86 attack speed), and has 6x the hitpoints (45 vs 250).
2 Missile turrets is equivalent to 8 marines in bunkers
4 Missile turrets is equivalent to leaving 16 marines at home.
10 missile turrets is the same as leaving 40 marines at home at 1/4 the cost
Don't blame me, blame math. 30+ Mutas will snipe 1 Turret but the other 9 will shred them as well as marines do from longer range. The turrets will lose dps slower and will retain max damage longer due to longer range and higher hitpoints.
Marines only roflstomp Mutalisks because of medivac heals. Otherwise marines will die faster than turrets.
|
I believe that the current meta game is reaching the point in which WOL ended.
Look at PvZ right now. Could anyone tell me when was the last time Protos won best of 5 against Zergs (Naniwa after cheesing in game 5)?
Parting, Rain, Sos, Hero and mamy more have recently been smashed both in GSL and IEM. Most of the games were not even close.
And now after possible WM nerf, Terrans will also struggle in this matchup.
Mutas switches are deadly in PvZ, and after Oversers buff they cant be stopped in TvZ as well.
|
On October 16 2013 05:12 tili wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote:
Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored. Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote:
All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore. Oh, please. You are totally out of touch with being unbiased. The graduated damage output of the WM is brilliant/innovative. It rewards micro (moving farther from range) without strongly negating base damage. Plus, it's a test map. If it's terribly, they'll change it.
Even if it was, I wouldn't care. The only thought-worthy question is: is this change necessary balance-wise? And the answer is no. Zergs are not struggling at all anymore in the match-up, so weakening Terran's main strategy is completely absurd. And if, after 3 years, they suddenly woke up to discover that Tank-based play is interesting and would be a better norm, they're massively deluded if they think -0.3 attack speed will do the trick.
|
Make Siege Tank attack speed 2.5 and remove armored tag from Marauder, that way Marine Marauder Medivac will have chance vs Mech as tanks won't do +15vs armored damage. Not sure if this would work but just some ideas.
|
Wow, so much negativity. We've become the Battle.net forums...
|
This is really hilarious.
Half of top 16 WCS is Terran. Top 3 TLPD Elo is Terran. 6 out of top 10 in Aligulac is Terran. 4 out of 5 most recent Premiere event winners are Terran.
After half a year Blizzard finally considers a minor nerf to mines, which has already been scaled back twice before even going live, and compensated with a buff to boot. The whole thread is people crying about Mutalisks.
|
They advise Z to build ton of static defense to deal with hellbat drop, mm drop, all kinds of drop. And now they don't want to make turret? Common???
|
I am pretty sure blizzard change widow mine because of balance, but because of how boring TvZ (TvP is pretty bad too...)is right now. I have not played this game for a year already, but I still watch games all the time. The problem with TvZ right now is that you know what is going to happen right from the beginning of the game, 3cc into parade push and either the zerg defend it or he dies. Yes, it is very action packed and has a lot awesome (and awful) moments, but it feels like the game is stuck at the bio mine phase and there isn't any transition after that.
With tanks, which have obvious strengths and weaknesses unlike the mine, makes the game a lot more fun too watch. I know it is frustrating to carefully positioning all your tanks and avoid getting catch unseige, but it is definitely fun to watch. Unlike mine base TvZ right now, tanks will bring a sense of progression to the match up because of its weaknesses. You will see mutas trying to pick off the tanks while marines trying to fend off the mutas; you will also see thors added in if their muta flock gets too large. Also with the obvious weakness of tanks in vipers and broodlords, we will see terrans adding in vikings to their compositions. Hell, air transition for terran might even be an option if the game drags on for too long.
The more units that showed up in the match up, the better it is for the viewers especially when the appearance of these units represents a new phase of the game. For example, the viewers will get excited when they see vipers showing up, which signifies the zerg counterattack phase. They will also get excited if they see the terran trying to transit to ravens when the zerg is building up his broodlord flocks. Seeing these units simply tell you that the game is in a new phase, which keeps people's attention because they know new things are going to happen.
If the mine nerf makes TvZ unbalance, then nerf the mutas and blinding cloud to make the match up balance again (it is not like zergs are depending on muta and blinding cloud to have any chance in other match ups). TvZ as of now is extremely boring and one dimensional, and the mine nerf is the first step in the right direction. By the way, I really like the idea that transformation servos reduces the siege time of tanks.
tldr; mines are kiling starcraft, tanks are cool to watch because of its weaknesses, nerf muta and blinding clouds if TvZ becomes imba.
|
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote:
Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
Its a change on a test map. If the nerf is not needed then it wont go live like all the other stuff that didnt go live. Do people not understand what test means?
|
On October 16 2013 06:42 sitromit wrote:
Half of top 16 WCS is Terran. Top 3 TLPD Elo is Terran. 6 out of top 10 in Aligulac is Terran. 4 out of 5 most recent Premiere event winners are Terran.
As usual people can't see the forest for the trees. Half of Blizzcon will be Terran, yes, but how is that relevant to what happens now when some of the points were scored long ago, either before the Hellbat nerf or simply before Protoss and Zerg developed their play against Terran? Quoting TLPD/Aligulac is hilarious considering such ratings regularly deliver aberrations such as HeroMarine being above Flash or LucifroN rated higher than Soulkey. Tournament winners say nothing; Terran was under-represented in WCS Europe in the RO8, and still the only Terran who made it there won. There were more top level Terrans in Dreamhack Bucharest, just like the Zerg line-up was stronger recently at IEM, etc.
Now, since you seem to like this subject of Terran representation, how about the following questions? How many Terrans reached RO8 in Premier League this season? How many Terrans qualified in Challenger League this season? How many GM Terrans worldwide? How many Terrans in Master? Upon answering such things, you may discover that as usual, it's a small group of elite players still doing well (but for how long?) rather than the Terran race being successful as a whole.
On October 16 2013 07:09 havok55 wrote:
Its a change on a test map. If the nerf is not needed then it wont go live like all the other stuff that didnt go live. Do people not understand what test means?
If the nerf is not needed, then why are they even testing it? And what makes you think that they will take the right decision anyway? Do people need to remind you how WoL ended?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
