EPTPro Opinions: Proposed Terran Buffs - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 12 2014 00:21 DomeGetta wrote: Medes are too strong.. Mutas are fine.. but Medes are too strong.. same cost - slower - cant attack ground or air - have 0% chance of entering an area with adequate static and don't regen.. but too strong..Mutas tho.. NP People keep asking for tanks to return to TvZ by buffing the tank. You get tanks whenever mutalisks aren't in play, as it's very effective vs. roach/hydra. The tank's stats are not the problem. Mutas sniping tanks is simply far too cost efficient, as Terran can never reliably punish an over-aggressive muta cloud anymore; they just fly in, take a bunch of damage to guarantee the tank kills, then fly off with low health only to fully heal in short order. Then baneling waves roll in to kill the remaining bio. | ||
|
Bey
United States78 Posts
I would like to see creep recede slightly faster, even if it meant it was slightly easier to spread as the game quickly becomes un-winnable if Terran makes an early mistake that gives Zerg even a few minutes of map control. I'd love to see a change like having the nuke insta-clear creep. I have no idea how it would play out in terms of balance but it would be an interesting change that would open some new options and attack the issue of crazy creep spread that qxc was talking about. | ||
|
DomeGetta
480 Posts
On July 12 2014 03:57 Bey wrote: I'd love to see a change like having the nuke insta-clear creep. I have no idea how it would play out in terms of balance but it would be an interesting change that would open some new options and attack the issue of crazy creep spread that qxc was talking about. That actually sounds pretty cool.. and might make ghosts worth working into ur unit comp late game but I think they would also have to add a snipe buff so that they had some utility.. not sure they would be worth the supply otherwise just to kill creep. | ||
|
DomeGetta
480 Posts
On July 12 2014 00:31 Hider wrote: Sorry, there are too many statistical reasons for why this graph is absolutely irrelevant. The data is simply influenced by too much noice and you need to make a much more comprehensive regression analysis to get useful information. Yah outside of the "mutas made" vs. "mutas made - mutas lost" you probably still have a ways to go in culling the data before having it usable. You'd have to probably isolate mech games vs bio games and run the analysis separate. Also probably worth it to truncate games that one player gets enough of an advantage through an early game tactic like 2 rax or 6 pool or 10 pool or 1 base bane etc.. you'd really just want to run this on games played out standard ling/bling/muta vs. bio.. even tho mutas also dominate vs mech its a very different mechanic there. I'm sure there is a way to do it but you'd have to really think through the assumptions prior to.. I'd actually be more interested to see the total gas mined vs. winrate.. I think that's the biggest thing in terms of creating a snowballed adv that cannot be overcome.. for you to get that muta cloud + the never ending baneling factory you need a lot of gas.. if you can get it you basically cant lose once you transition to ultra if you stay on creep and mine the map out..at least thats how it seems to me from the pro games I watch.. Even over all game length vs. winrate in both PvT and ZvT is probably something interesting to see. | ||
|
GrildCheesus
Canada4 Posts
 | ||
|
b_unnies
3579 Posts
Medivacs and mutas have always been OP in WoL, it was ridiculous they got buffed at HoTS launch. | ||
|
Mongoose
United Kingdom190 Posts
This is just a dream but I would like to see terrans get their own version of creep. I know it sounds ridiculous but if we had a way of spreading vision across the map (even if it were far less effective than creep is) then that would allow us to expand to a 3rd base quicker and not have to rely on mid game damage as much. Maybe change the sensor tower so that it has less range but is cheaper and faster to build? And perhaps if destroyed, the sensor tower would automatically rebuild itself over the course of a minute or so if no enemy units are in range (e.g. creep), and also change the circle of the sensor tower on the minimap so it doesn't overlap with another one if there are 2 towers close to each other (as that would clutter the minimap) | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3535 Posts
I hate it how terrans are only strong in mid game (apart from cheese builds). Polts advice to Terrans, go macro. | ||
|
Clbull
United Kingdom1439 Posts
On July 06 2014 06:26 Mojito99 wrote: Honestly, some of the responses really make me ask whether or not the ppl answering read the question it seems abundantly clear, that in both TvP and TvZ, Terran has troubles in the late game. Perhaps the ghost is the answer, it fits with the bio play in both matchups? perhaps an hp buff or make snipe usable vs biological again (obviously adjust dmg numbers) or increased range of snipe When I proposed increased Snipe range and making Snipe work vs non-biological units before, I got downvoted to hell on reddit. It seems like a really good idea though... | ||
|
vik7
United States227 Posts
| ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
I was always a hughe SC:BW fan and played terran there (now i play random) and i always liked how you were in need of missle turrets especially in tvz ofcourse we still build turrets but buffing them might help tanks as well as the overall gameplay. I propose a turret range buff, not only the +1 you can research (wich is nice already), but additional 1 to 2 range. Vs Toss If turrets outrange colossus it would help a tiny bit against toss and might even make defensive positions more valid. Also DT´s Vs Zerg Muta play gets a bit harder for Zerg Also turrets as tank support might get additional meaning. If it was my choice i actually would buff the shit out of turrets -> more hp, more armor and/or more dps. But for now i would stick to more range. I would love some comments on this, since this idea is in my head for some time, i think i picket it up from some pro player who proposed this a while ago. | ||
|
jellyjello
Korea (South)664 Posts
On July 14 2014 10:06 vik7 wrote: i'd much rather hear the opinions of Korean pros if possible David Kim should fly TheMarine to have him coach the balance team on the balance issues. What's really frustrating here is that this team led by David Kim doesn't understand this simple fact that balance will always be broken. What's important is not about balancing three races, but instead having each unit in the game unique and interesting. Sadly, the core design and interface of SC2 doesn't allow this behavior from most of the units. In fact, I fully agree with TheMarine in this regard that the only interesting unit out of all things is the stalkers and their blink micro. If the majority of units in the game is interesting and appealing to micro/macro aspects, then the rest of the balance can be accomplished by player attributes and strategies within the map design. This is the critical concept that these buffoons in the balance team, starting with David Kim, must realize. | ||
|
Socup
190 Posts
On July 12 2014 03:51 iamcaustic wrote: People keep asking for tanks to return to TvZ by buffing the tank. You get tanks whenever mutalisks aren't in play, as it's very effective vs. roach/hydra. The tank's stats are not the problem. Mutas sniping tanks is simply far too cost efficient, as Terran can never reliably punish an over-aggressive muta cloud anymore; they just fly in, take a bunch of damage to guarantee the tank kills, then fly off with low health only to fully heal in short order. Then baneling waves roll in to kill the remaining bio. Use mine tank. Tank shoot banes, mine shoot mutas. Get one thor to help clear muta clouds sniping tanks. 1 thor, a few tanks, a few mines, much cheaper than heaps of vikings and thors or marines. I usually win TvZ's when I use mines a LOT. I usually lose when I opt not to use mines. Even though they take supply, instantly splatting 12 lings or banes can be so helpful. Yes, its unreliable. your minefields must grow in size relative to the time index of the game. Early/mid game is 2-3 mines. Lategame is 4-6 mines. When used with tank thor or marine or marauder, less mines can be more useful. Still, there is nothing so satisfying than building 20 enhanced digging mines and sending a suicide squad on the enemy forces and bury mines right in the middle of them all and watch the equivalent of a nuke go off in their forces. On July 14 2014 06:03 Mongoose wrote: I hate it how terrans are only strong in mid game (apart from cheese builds). This is just a dream but I would like to see terrans get their own version of creep. I know it sounds ridiculous but if we had a way of spreading vision across the map (even if it were far less effective than creep is) then that would allow us to expand to a 3rd base quicker and not have to rely on mid game damage as much. Maybe change the sensor tower so that it has less range but is cheaper and faster to build? And perhaps if destroyed, the sensor tower would automatically rebuild itself over the course of a minute or so if no enemy units are in range (e.g. creep), and also change the circle of the sensor tower on the minimap so it doesn't overlap with another one if there are 2 towers close to each other (as that would clutter the minimap) Maybe they aren't strong in lategame for pros, but I typically go into late game vs P and Z if a cheese or all in doesnt kill me, and I find trading armies well and building up a mix of units than overrelying on a few or one type does better for late game. Marines and marauders are still core units to T, just like zealot/stalker for P, or ling/roach for Z, but if you fight P and lose and the replay says that your army cost is significantly lower at all times when you fight P, then the problem is self evident. Spending money on too much of one unit that easily gets countered without having some high cost/high power units. On July 14 2014 11:14 Chilling5pr33 wrote: I think terran needs a different buff. I was always a hughe SC:BW fan and played terran there (now i play random) and i always liked how you were in need of missle turrets especially in tvz ofcourse we still build turrets but buffing them might help tanks as well as the overall gameplay. I propose a turret range buff, not only the +1 you can research (wich is nice already), but additional 1 to 2 range. Vs Toss If turrets outrange colossus it would help a tiny bit against toss and might even make defensive positions more valid. Also DT´s Vs Zerg Muta play gets a bit harder for Zerg Also turrets as tank support might get additional meaning. If it was my choice i actually would buff the shit out of turrets -> more hp, more armor and/or more dps. But for now i would stick to more range. I would love some comments on this, since this idea is in my head for some time, i think i picket it up from some pro player who proposed this a while ago. Turrets outranging colossus is partially against the nature of a siege weapon, to hit from outside the range of most defenses. Turrets already have pretty good DPS. if you want more hp, armor, and DPS, make more turrets like Z has to make multiple spores or P has to make multiple cannons, and still supplement those with real units to fend off an actual attack. Static defenses work almost like brood war, they lose effectiveness over time as the upgrades kick in. This actually means you must build more or use supply cost units to supplement. In reality, static defenses are what allows late game to not stalemate. As your army gets stronger, you gain ability to engage weakly defended areas as static defenses become that much worse against your army, which means you can use tactics and strategies to bust into your enemy and beat them. If SD's kept pace with army DPS and armor, then lategame would be SD spam and nothing happening. On July 14 2014 12:03 jellyjello wrote: David Kim should fly TheMarine to have him coach the balance team on the balance issues. What's really frustrating here is that this team led by David Kim doesn't understand this simple fact that balance will always be broken. What's important is not about balancing three races, but instead having each unit in the game unique and interesting. Sadly, the core design and interface of SC2 doesn't allow this behavior from most of the units. In fact, I fully agree with TheMarine in this regard that the only interesting unit out of all things is the stalkers and their blink micro. If the majority of units in the game is interesting and appealing to micro/macro aspects, then the rest of the balance can be accomplished by player attributes and strategies within the map design. This is the critical concept that these buffoons in the balance team, starting with David Kim, must realize. You're half right. In SC1 you had a damage with -% modifier instead of a strict damage +"towhatever" modifier. For instance, tanks are 25 damage +10 to armored. If they were 35 damage, -10 to light, suddenly, their damage against non-light but non-armored units would be different. You've got more wiggle room because things don't necessarily have to be armored for the tank to do a lot of damage, yet against light it still has it's damage reduced like SC1. It's still a bit of a binary unit, though. That's the core problem of SC2 for a lot of things, it's all binary. Units are very binary compared to units in SC1, they either work or fail. SC1 units were much more gradient in how you could use them. SC2 was designed to be binary. Dustin Browder said so in a VOD, though not using this exact word. He said that he was interested in making the game like football, where there is back and forth due to timings and upgrades. He cited banes and bane speed vs stim, presumably that one is supposed to create a "back" advantage while the other nullifies it for a "and forth" counter. Hence, binary. He also said colossus were going to be mineral line raiders sneaking up cliffs to kill workers, and that roaches could abuse burrow move to get into enemy bases (both of these are completely worthless in real play because of skill level + the fact the 'deathball' is more efficient). So it may not be hard to guess which person is messing up SC2 by being out of touch. Also, the Thor "buff" for prioritizing air needs to go ASAP. A zerg can now "kite" thors by sending in overseers or ols with a ground army, and the thor will shoot that instead of the much more dangerous ling/roach/whatever. Terrible "buff". | ||
|
NihilisticGod
Northern Ireland174 Posts
It would be a nice change if they looked decreasing the time it takes for a siege tank to siege and unsiege. Not talking instantly here, but faster than it is now. Also iirc someone pointed out a while ago that because of a certain attribute of the banshee when you have more than 1 they are harder to micro. So pulling off the stutter step micro with 1 banshee is smooth, while 2 or more doesn't work as smoothly because of a game mechanic. Maybe Blizzard could look at changing this. | ||
|
iamkaokao
108 Posts
| ||
|
orvinreyes
577 Posts
On July 06 2014 06:35 Teoita wrote: Sort of, but it's really hard and it takes a while. We wanted to get this article out asap, so decided to publish quickly instead. We'll definitely try to include them in the next one though, assuming blizz goes through another iteration of potential changes soon. Hi Teoita, great work. I second that we should hear from Korean pros (referring to GSL/Proleague players), as they undeniably play at the highest levels and will give more qualified insight. Hope they reply to you soon. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 15 2014 10:31 Socup wrote: Use mine tank. Tank shoot banes, mine shoot mutas. Get one thor to help clear muta clouds sniping tanks. 1 thor, a few tanks, a few mines, much cheaper than heaps of vikings and thors or marines. I usually win TvZ's when I use mines a LOT. I usually lose when I opt not to use mines. Even though they take supply, instantly splatting 12 lings or banes can be so helpful. Yes, its unreliable. your minefields must grow in size relative to the time index of the game. Early/mid game is 2-3 mines. Lategame is 4-6 mines. When used with tank thor or marine or marauder, less mines can be more useful. Still, there is nothing so satisfying than building 20 enhanced digging mines and sending a suicide squad on the enemy forces and bury mines right in the middle of them all and watch the equivalent of a nuke go off in their forces. Are there any high-level (Masters) replays of this actually working? I'm intrigued, but skeptical. | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
Although in theory you could use Mines and Tanks to bait out Mutas (Tanks are a Muta magnet) I doubt a Mine would kill off every single Zergling/Muta trying to kill that Tank. Once Zerg closes the distance a Tank is essentially a crappier Mine (although it keeps shooting if it doesn't die). You'd also be putting a lot of supply into stuff that has to Burrow/Siege before they become useful. Would make pushing on creep a tricky thing at best. | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
| ||
| ||
