|
On November 16 2013 03:43 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 03:33 SuperYo1000 wrote:On November 16 2013 03:30 Faust852 wrote:On November 16 2013 02:38 SuperYo1000 wrote:On November 16 2013 02:28 Viserion wrote:On November 16 2013 02:27 WeddingEpisode wrote:
Sorry if this is written already, but when might this patch be released? It´s active already. Its not live, there are still the test maps thou, Thought I heard that its suppose to be 2 weeks after wcs grand finals It's live for 3 days now. Lol. really? wth....then something is wrong where I'm at cuz I checked the tank this morning and still same old one It's the same old one. Maybe you didn't notice he shoot one more time every minute tho.
Don't forget to mention the rationale for further hilarity:
Not only that, we believe Terran mech armies can be a lot more viable because faster attack speed naturally means Siege Tanks will be better against their hard counters.
The Tank crew can now facepalm 0.2 second earlier each time the Tank would have fired had it not been under this eerie green cloud. A true improvement.
|
On November 16 2013 02:22 Nebuchad wrote:
The thing is, if you buff mech too much, you aren't enhancing diversity, you're just creating another stale state, where people go mech every game instead of going bio every game. That isn't a better result.
If you're after diversity, what you should be aiming for is a state where you can actually transition. Protoss starts to have an army that counters your bio too well, with a lot of colossi and templars? Then transition into mech. Then, when the protoss starts to be too good vs mech, switch to air or to bio.
Of course, you can't really do that with terran in the current state. As a non-terran player, I always felt that that was the major problem that you were encountering: tech switching being completely suboptimal, when compared to staying on the same tech even when getting hardcountered.
Then again, I'm casually surprised that everyone sees this as a problem now, when it's been the case from the start of the game, and nobody ever cared.
Correct, so ideally blizz just needs to make much viable only in Tvp. I want mech just as bad as other terrains. However I do not want to mech every single game as that will get stale as well. The reason you see so many complaints about 4m getting stale is because it is nearly an identical strategy to tvp.
With that said there are plenty of changes they can make that have zero impact on other mu's
Tanks should do additional DMG to shields.
Raven pdd now blocks immort shots
|
Raven pdd now blocks immort shots
That's a bad solution though as it just further rewards the lame mech/raven turtle style. And frankly, PDD is in it self one of the most unexciting abilities.
Mech needs to be a lot stronger early game and in the midgame in order to reward timing attacks and aggression.
|
Northern Ireland23772 Posts
Too often missing from this discussion is that mech shouldn't necessarily be viable for its sake. When it IS viable, it should function in a cool, distinct way (a la BW) and be stylistically divergent from other styles.
As it stands, even from the high-level mech games of yore, is it really good to watch? The warhound made 'mech' pretty damn strong, was it good or not?
I have yet to see a mech based army recently (near enough since HoTS came out) that is anything other than a slower, less manouverable Terran equivalent of a Protoss deathball, with less in the ways of harassment options that benefit in proportion to the skill of the player.
In WoL TvZ mech towards the end you saw some big hellion suicide to try to kill as many drones as possible into turtling into doing a pre-Brood timing. There's little of interest to me as a spectator in that.
TvZ mech in WoL is a good case in point, it seemed to only work if you hampered your opponents economy. A comparison with BW is hard because the economies are so different, production works differently too, but ideally mech should be more cost-efficient, more defensively solid (when played well) from earlier if it's to work properly.
Current map trends do not help its case either.
TvT is a different kettle of fish because of various other factors and bio vs mech or marine-tank vs mech is a hell of a lot different than attempts to mech in other matchups.
|
Aside from a buff to damage vs shields (which honestly seems like a no-brainer at this point), one buff I'd like to see them consider would be to increase the speed of unsieged Tanks. Not by a ton, I'm not proposing superspeed tanks zooming around the map like zerglings or anything. But even bumping their speed very slightly by .25 or .5 (which would give them speed 2.75, the same speed of upgraded Zealots when they aren't charging, i.e. not super fast, but not incredibly slow either) would do a lot to mitigate some of the problems with going mech, namely:
-Players who are good at leapfrogging with Tanks would be able to push across the map at a somewhat faster pace, and could thus apply pressure more easily rather than being forced to turtle. Of course, players who aren't good at leapfrogging could still get easily ambushed out of position and destroyed, but I see that as a good thing because it preserves the skill challenge inherent in playing mech.
-Meching players could actually reinforce when their army is outside of the base, something that has become increasingly difficult as map size has increased. This would mean that players would be more comfortable pushing out with lower tank counts, confident they can reinforce as new tanks are built, rather than turtling up to create a super army.
-In general, it would encourage players to be more active with tanks and reposition them more frequently as the situation demands. For example, meching players almost never retreat, because it typically results in losing their entire army. If tanks could get out faster once unsieged, we might see more players taking steps to keep them alive in the event that they don't win an engagement outright.
|
On November 16 2013 04:08 Hider wrote:That's a bad solution though as it just further rewards the lame mech/raven turtle style. And frankly, PDD is in it self one of the most unexciting abilities. Mech needs to be a lot stronger early game and in the midgame in order to reward timing attacks and aggression.
Tanks will also do additional DMG to shields so that should help a bit early game. With the pdd change you could do a decent mid game push on a toss 3rd with 1 raven and a good amount of tank/hellion as the odd would nullify the immortal problem.
I think pdd is one of the better abilities in sc2 its dynamic and interesting. Because once you law down the pdd the toss will now need to retreat giving you better map control. And if you can land it at the third base of toss you can take out the base.
|
On November 16 2013 00:37 Wombat_NI wrote:
I come from a Protoss perspective, played since release and started dabbling with Terran for fun in WoL.
Now, in WoL I was a real PvT specialist, far and away my best matchup, TvP was my best T matchup as well, given my decent knowledge of P builds. Also used to be my favourite matchup to watch when top Koreans were involved when TvZ got silly.
Part of the issue ever since the photon overcharge came into the game, is that it is such a crutch it's ridiculous.
Look at builds like Creators old style double forge PvT in WoL. The unit numbers were so exacting, the timings mapped out to be solid. 4 sentries and no more for the optimal safety/greed trade off. Immortals timed to hold the 2 medivac push and then cut out entirely. Terrans occasionally pressured with marines to snipe sentries and to force the P into deciding to rebuild, or to continue greedily teching etc.
I don't see that kind of carefully calculated build schematic being necessary in HoTS PvT. There are still fantastic players executing things well, but the MsC is like a free pass to the periods of the game where Protoss is strong.
The only time Protoss were really struggling in the matchup was when they were taking thirds at WoL timings and having speedvacs pull them apart. When they figured out to turtle and tech harder on 2 bases before expanding their Eco even speedvacs struggle to properly damage at old timings (non-commitally)
In addition to their macro styles being safer, they still have the aggressive/cheesy options open to them. Worse still, a Terran can't circumvent and counter as effectively due to photon overcharge.
Sorry to come across as whiny, I'm a self-hating Protoss. As ever I feel the key to interesting strategy games is a risk-reward element into decisions. Decisions Blizzard seem to refuse to make Protoss players make.
Warpgate - Better than gateways in every way, why not get it? Hey we could create an interesting dynamic between the reinforcement potential of Warpgates and something like augmented production rates from gateways. Hey let's not though. Let's give Protoss no such trade off to make, and by DEFAULT enable them to have both faster macro cycles and reinforcement potential
This is why I like you. You don't take the side of OH MY GOD NO WARP GATES THERE'S GONNA BE IMBALANCE but Warp Gates vs Gateways there should be a natural dynamic thus making the game much more interesting. I remember way way back when in TvP when everyone did a double tech lab, 1 reactor opening, and I wanna say it was MKP(?) who did a double reactor, 1 tech lab opening and it really blew open what early game pressure could look like from the Terran.
|
If Tanks get a decent buff vs shield damage, then I'm not convinced that Immortals will be a huge problem. Yes, they'll still be strong against a pure tank composition, but Immortals without support from other units go down very quickly to marines. The issue in the past has been that its never just Immortals, but rather Immortals along with sizable Gateway armies for support, and neither the Tanks nor Marines are capable of killing those Gateway armies before the Immortals get in range and kill the Tanks.
But if Tank damage was substantially buffed vs shields, then that Gateway support will melt a lot faster, and once they're gone then any Immortals left standing will be easy pickings for marines.
In other words, its fine if Immortals are still good against Tanks, provided Tanks are made much better vs. Zealots, Archons, Stalkers, and all the other ground units that typically accompany Immortal pushes. The problem currently isn't that Protoss has one ground unit that is good against Tanks, but rather that most of the Toss ground units are good against tanks. A damage buff vs shields would do a lot to fix that.
|
People are trying too much to summarize mech problems into 1 problem ("vs immortals", "vs air").
Currently, mech TvP is having problem in a large amount of situations, you have to deal with a really fragile (and considering how it is with bio atm..) early game, an hardly cost effective midgame and a waaayyy stronger lategame for the protoss. You have little possibilites early game (staying alive is already hard enough), your midgame requires an insane adaptation, making composition with 5 units in order to counter everything, and if you get 1 slightly cost uneffective fight, it's over, because you basically needed 15 min to get your first army. If you survive to this, you go into the lategame where the warp and chronoboost mechanic, the weaknesses of hellion/hellbat, the strength of protoss anti mech means you'll be behind in most aspects of the game , uppgrades, economy, counter units...
It's just not possible to say "buff X" or "nerf Y" to makes mech TvP works. There is a LOT of reworks to do, for both races (and the core problem will still be that the game itself is flawed. but another subject)
Currently, bio already has a lots of problem.. do not expect mech to have less problems. It has most of bio's problems vP in the urrent state of the game, and a tons of other.
|
On November 16 2013 04:43 Lyyna wrote:
People are trying too much to summarize mech problems into 1 problem ("vs immortals", "vs air").
Currently, mech TvP is having problem in a large amount of situations, you have to deal with a really fragile (and considering how it is with bio atm..) early game, an hardly cost effective midgame and a waaayyy stronger lategame for the protoss. You have little possibilites early game (staying alive is already hard enough), your midgame requires an insane adaptation, making composition with 5 units in order to counter everything, and if you get 1 slightly cost uneffective fight, it's over, because you basically needed 15 min to get your first army. If you survive to this, you go into the lategame where the warp and chronoboost mechanic, the weaknesses of hellion/hellbat, the strength of protoss anti mech means you'll be behind in most aspects of the game , uppgrades, economy, counter units...
It's just not possible to say "buff X" or "nerf Y" to makes mech TvP works. There is a LOT of reworks to do, for both races (and the core problem will still be that the game itself is flawed. but another subject)
I disagree. Every style should have strengths and weaknesses. The problem with mech currently isn't that it has weaknesses, because it should. The problem is that its "strengths" are really unimpressive relative to its weaknesses, and thus not worth the tradeoff.
If, for example, Tanks had their damage vs. shields buffed so that they were really strong vs every Protoss unit on the ground in a direct engagement except Immortals (who go down easily enough once their gateway support have been wiped out), then despite not being as mobile or adaptive as bio, I think they'd still have a clear role to play in the matchup and we'd see players incorporating them a lot more.
|
On November 16 2013 04:19 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 04:08 Hider wrote:Raven pdd now blocks immort shots That's a bad solution though as it just further rewards the lame mech/raven turtle style. And frankly, PDD is in it self one of the most unexciting abilities. Mech needs to be a lot stronger early game and in the midgame in order to reward timing attacks and aggression. Tanks will also do additional DMG to shields so that should help a bit early game. With the pdd change you could do a decent mid game push on a toss 3rd with 1 raven and a good amount of tank/hellion as the odd would nullify the immortal problem. I think pdd is one of the better abilities in sc2 its dynamic and interesting. Because once you law down the pdd the toss will now need to retreat giving you better map control. And if you can land it at the third base of toss you can take out the base.
I don't think PDD push rewards pushes compared to how it further rewards turtling. PDD is a much stronger defensive ability since than offensive and Ravens also scales really really well.
I think a +10 damage vs shield (that ignores hardened shield) is a better option and then PDD also doesn't need to counter Immortals.
provided Tanks are made much better vs. Zealots,
Tanks don't need to better vs zealots. In BW tanks were also bad vs them, but you simply had alot alot of Vultures since they were a much stronger all round units than hellions/hellbats are. Instead, Immortals in small numbers are much much better vs tanks than Dragoons in small numbers were, which IMO is a big design problem. That means mech can't be offensive early/midgame. . Especially since your also more exposed to counterattacks due to not having Spider Mines --> Rewards turtling.
|
On November 16 2013 04:48 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 04:43 Lyyna wrote:
People are trying too much to summarize mech problems into 1 problem ("vs immortals", "vs air").
Currently, mech TvP is having problem in a large amount of situations, you have to deal with a really fragile (and considering how it is with bio atm..) early game, an hardly cost effective midgame and a waaayyy stronger lategame for the protoss. You have little possibilites early game (staying alive is already hard enough), your midgame requires an insane adaptation, making composition with 5 units in order to counter everything, and if you get 1 slightly cost uneffective fight, it's over, because you basically needed 15 min to get your first army. If you survive to this, you go into the lategame where the warp and chronoboost mechanic, the weaknesses of hellion/hellbat, the strength of protoss anti mech means you'll be behind in most aspects of the game , uppgrades, economy, counter units...
It's just not possible to say "buff X" or "nerf Y" to makes mech TvP works. There is a LOT of reworks to do, for both races (and the core problem will still be that the game itself is flawed. but another subject) I disagree. Every style should have strengths and weaknesses. The problem with mech currently isn't that it has weaknesses, because it should. The problem is that its "strengths" are really unimpressive relative to its weaknesses, and thus not worth the tradeoff. If, for example, Tanks had their damage vs. shields buffed so that they were really strong vs every Protoss unit on the ground in a direct engagement except Immortals (who go down easily enough once their gateway support have been wiped out), then despite not being as mobile or adaptive as bio, I think they'd still have a clear role to play in the matchup and we'd see players incorporating them a lot more.
The problem is not that it has weaknesses - the problem is that is has basically no real strength in a real game (aka opponent not sleeping), and that it has HUGE weaknesses (better called flaws, at this point) in basically every area of the game
|
On November 16 2013 05:17 Lyyna wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 04:48 awesomoecalypse wrote:On November 16 2013 04:43 Lyyna wrote:
People are trying too much to summarize mech problems into 1 problem ("vs immortals", "vs air").
Currently, mech TvP is having problem in a large amount of situations, you have to deal with a really fragile (and considering how it is with bio atm..) early game, an hardly cost effective midgame and a waaayyy stronger lategame for the protoss. You have little possibilites early game (staying alive is already hard enough), your midgame requires an insane adaptation, making composition with 5 units in order to counter everything, and if you get 1 slightly cost uneffective fight, it's over, because you basically needed 15 min to get your first army. If you survive to this, you go into the lategame where the warp and chronoboost mechanic, the weaknesses of hellion/hellbat, the strength of protoss anti mech means you'll be behind in most aspects of the game , uppgrades, economy, counter units...
It's just not possible to say "buff X" or "nerf Y" to makes mech TvP works. There is a LOT of reworks to do, for both races (and the core problem will still be that the game itself is flawed. but another subject) I disagree. Every style should have strengths and weaknesses. The problem with mech currently isn't that it has weaknesses, because it should. The problem is that its "strengths" are really unimpressive relative to its weaknesses, and thus not worth the tradeoff. If, for example, Tanks had their damage vs. shields buffed so that they were really strong vs every Protoss unit on the ground in a direct engagement except Immortals (who go down easily enough once their gateway support have been wiped out), then despite not being as mobile or adaptive as bio, I think they'd still have a clear role to play in the matchup and we'd see players incorporating them a lot more. The problem is not that it has weaknesses - the problem is that is has basically no real strength in a real game (aka opponent not sleeping), and that it has HUGE weaknesses (better called flaws, at this point) in basically every area of the game
But many (I'd say even the majority) of those are related to Tanks not doing enough damage vs Protoss to offset the loss of mobility. For example, you mention fragility in the early game. But Tanks no longer require you to research siege as an upgrade, so they can be on the map pretty quickly...but they just aren't that scary vs Protoss. You can turtle with them camped on your ramp, but thats all you can do, hence the sense of fragility. If Tanks were actually a unit that kicked the crap out of gateway units, then getting a couple Tanks early would open up many more options beyond just frantically turtling. You also mention lategame, and again, if Tanks did really good damage vs. Protoss ground units aside from Immortals, then they would have a much bigger, much more effective role to play in the lategame.
|
On November 16 2013 05:23 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 05:17 Lyyna wrote:On November 16 2013 04:48 awesomoecalypse wrote:On November 16 2013 04:43 Lyyna wrote:
People are trying too much to summarize mech problems into 1 problem ("vs immortals", "vs air").
Currently, mech TvP is having problem in a large amount of situations, you have to deal with a really fragile (and considering how it is with bio atm..) early game, an hardly cost effective midgame and a waaayyy stronger lategame for the protoss. You have little possibilites early game (staying alive is already hard enough), your midgame requires an insane adaptation, making composition with 5 units in order to counter everything, and if you get 1 slightly cost uneffective fight, it's over, because you basically needed 15 min to get your first army. If you survive to this, you go into the lategame where the warp and chronoboost mechanic, the weaknesses of hellion/hellbat, the strength of protoss anti mech means you'll be behind in most aspects of the game , uppgrades, economy, counter units...
It's just not possible to say "buff X" or "nerf Y" to makes mech TvP works. There is a LOT of reworks to do, for both races (and the core problem will still be that the game itself is flawed. but another subject) I disagree. Every style should have strengths and weaknesses. The problem with mech currently isn't that it has weaknesses, because it should. The problem is that its "strengths" are really unimpressive relative to its weaknesses, and thus not worth the tradeoff. If, for example, Tanks had their damage vs. shields buffed so that they were really strong vs every Protoss unit on the ground in a direct engagement except Immortals (who go down easily enough once their gateway support have been wiped out), then despite not being as mobile or adaptive as bio, I think they'd still have a clear role to play in the matchup and we'd see players incorporating them a lot more. The problem is not that it has weaknesses - the problem is that is has basically no real strength in a real game (aka opponent not sleeping), and that it has HUGE weaknesses (better called flaws, at this point) in basically every area of the game But many (I'd say even the majority) of those are related to Tanks not doing enough damage vs Protoss to offset the loss of mobility. For example, you mention fragility in the early game. But Tanks no longer require you to research siege as an upgrade, so they can be on the map pretty quickly...but they just aren't that scary vs Protoss. You can turtle with them camped on your ramp, but thats all you can do, hence the sense of fragility. If Tanks were actually a unit that kicked the crap out of gateway units, then getting a couple Tanks early would open up many more options beyond just frantically turtling. You also mention lategame, and again, if Tanks did really good damage vs. Protoss ground units aside from Immortals, then they would have a much bigger, much more effective role to play in the lategame.
The fact early game is fragile isn't related to tanks - and it's shared with bio
The fact our mineral dump, which is also our map control/harass tool is terrible isn't related to tanks
The fact our air-to-air isn't efficient isn't related to tanks
And i could continue for a long, long, long time.. i agree tanks is an insanely huge issue, but it's far from being the only one
|
In BW TvP, Protoss had a substantial advantage in the early game. They could more easily apply pressure and harass, they had an easier time gaining map control, and as a result they often had an easier time taking expansions. It was balanced out by Terran being able to build a truly terrifying tank based mech army that, if well-controlled, was an absolute nightmare to stop. If Terrans had the option to build a similarly powerful mech army in SC2, then Protoss advantages in map control and harass capability in the early game would, I suspect, be far less of an issue.
|
On November 16 2013 05:34 awesomoecalypse wrote:
In BW TvP, Protoss had a substantial advantage in the early game. They could more easily apply pressure and harass, they had an easier time gaining map control, and as a result they often had an easier time taking expansions. It was balanced out by Terran being able to build a truly terrifying tank based mech army that, if well-controlled, was an absolute nightmare to stop. If Terrans had the option to build a similarly powerful mech army in SC2, then Protoss advantages in map control and harass capability in the early game would, I suspect, be far less of an issue.
Terran could do the same thing as protoss: They could both attack early game and defend (dependant on build orders ofc.).
|
On November 16 2013 05:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 05:34 awesomoecalypse wrote:
In BW TvP, Protoss had a substantial advantage in the early game. They could more easily apply pressure and harass, they had an easier time gaining map control, and as a result they often had an easier time taking expansions. It was balanced out by Terran being able to build a truly terrifying tank based mech army that, if well-controlled, was an absolute nightmare to stop. If Terrans had the option to build a similarly powerful mech army in SC2, then Protoss advantages in map control and harass capability in the early game would, I suspect, be far less of an issue. Terran could do the same thing as protoss: They could both attack early game and defend (dependant on build orders ofc.).
I really don't think there were even semi-solid Terran options against protoss that involved early game aggression. If you wanted to beat a good protoss player in BW, you had to play a methodical, turtle style, and look to win a 30+ min game. Protoss has tons of cheesing options in BW and Terran mainly has 2 rax before supply depot. In BW, you couldn't open bio but no one pissed and moaned. You were far more limited in BW, but now it's the end of the world. That's the difference, the world is ending...
A player with 55% or greater win percent in t vs p, in BW, was a god. Few players have achieved such a thing. If you could turtle, have perfect defense, and play like Flash, then you were invincible. Problem is, no one else has been close to being that good, besides maybe oov. It's very disingenuous to say there were good attacking options in t vs p, for BW. There simply weren't any. They were bad gambles at best.
|
On November 16 2013 07:24 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 05:36 Hider wrote:On November 16 2013 05:34 awesomoecalypse wrote:
In BW TvP, Protoss had a substantial advantage in the early game. They could more easily apply pressure and harass, they had an easier time gaining map control, and as a result they often had an easier time taking expansions. It was balanced out by Terran being able to build a truly terrifying tank based mech army that, if well-controlled, was an absolute nightmare to stop. If Terrans had the option to build a similarly powerful mech army in SC2, then Protoss advantages in map control and harass capability in the early game would, I suspect, be far less of an issue. Terran could do the same thing as protoss: They could both attack early game and defend (dependant on build orders ofc.). I really don't think there were even semi-solid Terran options against protoss that involved early game aggression. If you wanted to beat a good protoss player in BW, you had to play a methodical, turtle style, and look to win a 30+ min game. Protoss has tons of cheesing options in BW and Terran mainly has 2 rax before supply depot. In BW, you couldn't open bio but no one pissed and moaned. You were far more limited in BW, but now it's the end of the world. That's the difference, the world is ending... A player with 55% or greater win percent in t vs p, in BW, was a god. Few players have achieved such a thing. If you could turtle, have perfect defense, and play like Flash, then you were invincible. Problem is, no one else has been close to being that good, besides maybe oov. It's very disingenuous to say there were good attacking options in t vs p, for BW. There simply weren't any. They were bad gambles at best.
Watch some Snipelot games. Terran very often does these early timing attacks (out of 1 base or 2 base) - With a pretty high win ratio.
|
On November 16 2013 07:24 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 05:36 Hider wrote:On November 16 2013 05:34 awesomoecalypse wrote:
In BW TvP, Protoss had a substantial advantage in the early game. They could more easily apply pressure and harass, they had an easier time gaining map control, and as a result they often had an easier time taking expansions. It was balanced out by Terran being able to build a truly terrifying tank based mech army that, if well-controlled, was an absolute nightmare to stop. If Terrans had the option to build a similarly powerful mech army in SC2, then Protoss advantages in map control and harass capability in the early game would, I suspect, be far less of an issue. Terran could do the same thing as protoss: They could both attack early game and defend (dependant on build orders ofc.). I really don't think there were even semi-solid Terran options against protoss that involved early game aggression. If you wanted to beat a good protoss player in BW, you had to play a methodical, turtle style, and look to win a 30+ min game. Protoss has tons of cheesing options in BW and Terran mainly has 2 rax before supply depot. In BW, you couldn't open bio but no one pissed and moaned. You were far more limited in BW, but now it's the end of the world. That's the difference, the world is ending... A player with 55% or greater win percent in t vs p, in BW, was a god. Few players have achieved such a thing. If you could turtle, have perfect defense, and play like Flash, then you were invincible. Problem is, no one else has been close to being that good, besides maybe oov. It's very disingenuous to say there were good attacking options in t vs p, for BW. There simply weren't any. They were bad gambles at best.
Yeah, you describe this like it was bad, and it was since if you can't reach more than 55% in a MU when you are good at it is not normal. SC2 is not BW, it's his successor and it should be better, correcting all the flaws BW had.
|
On November 16 2013 07:31 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 07:24 playa wrote:On November 16 2013 05:36 Hider wrote:On November 16 2013 05:34 awesomoecalypse wrote:
In BW TvP, Protoss had a substantial advantage in the early game. They could more easily apply pressure and harass, they had an easier time gaining map control, and as a result they often had an easier time taking expansions. It was balanced out by Terran being able to build a truly terrifying tank based mech army that, if well-controlled, was an absolute nightmare to stop. If Terrans had the option to build a similarly powerful mech army in SC2, then Protoss advantages in map control and harass capability in the early game would, I suspect, be far less of an issue. Terran could do the same thing as protoss: They could both attack early game and defend (dependant on build orders ofc.). I really don't think there were even semi-solid Terran options against protoss that involved early game aggression. If you wanted to beat a good protoss player in BW, you had to play a methodical, turtle style, and look to win a 30+ min game. Protoss has tons of cheesing options in BW and Terran mainly has 2 rax before supply depot. In BW, you couldn't open bio but no one pissed and moaned. You were far more limited in BW, but now it's the end of the world. That's the difference, the world is ending... A player with 55% or greater win percent in t vs p, in BW, was a god. Few players have achieved such a thing. If you could turtle, have perfect defense, and play like Flash, then you were invincible. Problem is, no one else has been close to being that good, besides maybe oov. It's very disingenuous to say there were good attacking options in t vs p, for BW. There simply weren't any. They were bad gambles at best. Watch some Snipelot games. Terran very often does these early timing attacks (out of 1 base or 2 base) - With a pretty high win ratio.
Give me a break. Yeah, and when all the foreign players went to SC 2, I was able to make bio work. Do me a favor sometime and look at winning percentages in t vs p for pros. It was obvious what style was the best. No one could duplicate it/had the skills to pull it off and aggressive based play has always been a low percentage move -- unless mid game, fantasy style.
For anyone that thinks t vs p is harder in this game than it was in BW, just look at some winning percentages between the two games and then slap yourself until you have some sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
