EPTPro Opinions: Proposed Terran Buffs - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
| ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
| ||
|
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7524 Posts
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Airtoss still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works. Fixed that for you | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/441482-chargelot-archon-void-ray-pvz really? | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
 . | ||
|
FireCake
151 Posts
On July 06 2014 18:46 Hider wrote: With all of these changes, the enemy player is actually rewarded for target firing PDD's as the PDD otherwise will regenerate super quickly. If he can do that really well, the PDD is a lot less effective and will only block 6-8 shots compared to the 10+ shots it currently blocks. I think you assume that there are one or very few pdd on the battlefield. During a big fight there are at least 20 pdds to protect the terran army, the zerg player can't destroy all these pdds : -It takes too much time -too much overkill (50 corruptor shooting one PDD for example) -you can't click on a precise air unit because the models of the units stack on the same area | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On July 06 2014 19:35 FireCake wrote: I think you assume that there are one or very few pdd on the battlefield. During a big fight there are at least 20 pdds to protect the terran army, the zerg player can't destroy all these pdds : -It takes too much time -too much overkill (50 corruptor shooting one PDD for example) -you can't click on a precise air unit because the models of the units stack on the same area Note that if you set up X PDD's with these changes, then the X PDD's runs out of energy roughly twice as fast as they currently do. So when all of the PDD's are out of energy, you have two choices; 1) Target fire them individally --> which is quite practical with these changes as the model size is larger making it much easier to see them and click on them. 2) Amove, which is bad becasue then over time the PDD will regenerate very much quicker in energy and block a lot more shots in the future. The scaling here is actually irrelevant in the determination of what the best type of micro is. As long as you target fire, this will be a nerf to PDD, regardless of the amount of PDD's placed. For instance if terran place up 20 PDD's that would perhaps take 30 seconds to get rid of the energy with X amount of corrupters in Sc2 currently. With these changes it might only take 20 seconds as long as you micro well. Still really good, but a nerf nontheless. Also note that no terran sets up 20 PDD's at once, but puts them up gradaully as the zerg otherwise would be able to escape. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 06 2014 19:20 Hider wrote: That's not a hardcounter. Below is the definition; Marine vs Banelings is dependent on micro. Even Marine vs the majority of the 90% of the units which you claim it hardcountered depends on micro. Hardcounter examples are however, Siege Tanks vs Immortals as there is nothing the Siege Tank player can do to become more cost-effective vs Immortals. The Immortals when amoved simply always beat Siege Tanks, which creates a terrible interaction. 90% is a exaggeration, but given the amount of air units in the game which nearly all fall to marines, the amount of units countered by it is pretty high. I'm more familiar with these kind of describtions for hard/soft counter. A hard counter describes the situation where one unit is completely dominant over another. A soft counter describes the situation where one unit is effective versus another unit, but it is not necessarily a landslide. "Hard counter" means a strategy or unit has no chance of victory at all against another strategy or unit. A soft counter is something that has an advantage against something else, but the advantage isn't insurmountable. "Counter" is a strategical term to describe "what-beats-what", and it doesn't make any difference strategically, how (e.g. kiting) the counter-interaction is achieved. Yes, immortal vs siege tank is kind of terrible in terms of interaction. But given that tanks simply don't have any movement capabilities once sieged, this is not just a plain immortal problem. That's a problem anytime you are playing tanks against something that can overrun them. The problem with the tank vs immortal is not that the immortal is a hard counter, but that the tank in return is not a hardcounter to anything vital of Protoss and all the ways to protect your tanks from immortals with Mech are very weak strategies. Edit: The | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
the banelings when amoved simply always beat Marines. Yes, but that's why Marines can micro which creates uncertainty about the outcome, that makes it a soft counter - not a hardcounter. The problem with the tank vs immortal is not that the immortal is a hard counter, but that the tank in return is not a hardcounter to anything vital of Protoss and all the ways to protect your tanks from immortals with Mech are very weak strategies If we look at the micro of Immortals vs Siege Tanks, it's simply retarded. Immortal has really high damage which should encourage target firing. But how on earth can it be target fired? Hellions suck vs it. Hellbats too low range. Tanks only deal 10 damage - it's quite clear that blizzard didn't spend a lot of times thinking of interactions here. There wouldn't really be an issue with Immortals being cost-effective against Siege Tanks if there was still interesting micro possibilites for the terran player, but there simply isn't and that's I believe when hardcounters are at it's worst. | ||
|
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7524 Posts
On July 06 2014 19:27 Teoita wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/441482-chargelot-archon-void-ray-pvz really? How about PvT? Mech also works in TvZ Also, I wouldn't call chargelot-archon-voidray-ht airtoss | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 06 2014 19:51 Hider wrote: Yes, but that's why Marines can micro which creates uncertainty about the outcome, that makes it a soft counter - not a hardcounter. If we look at the micro of Immortals vs Siege Tanks, it's simply retarded. Immortal has really high damage which should encourage target firing. But how on earth can it be target fired? Hellions suck vs it. Hellbats too low range. Tanks only deal 10 damage - it's quite clear that blizzard didn't spend a lot of times thinking of interactions here. There wouldn't really be an issue with Immortals being cost-effective against Siege Tanks if there was still interesting micro possibilites for the terran player, but there simply isn't and that's I believe when hardcounters are at it's worst. thing is, that has little to do with hardcounters. take roach vs roach, it's perfectly balanced, not counter relation. Same problem, there is little you can do in terms of control. same goes for marines vs marines. But then you introduce a counter unit to be added to the marine army (e.g. hellions early or tanks), and suddenly the combats become much more interesting, since suddenly you get all those sniping micro and all the disengaging from tanks etc. I think we are basically talking about the same thing that is the problem. Just imo, that problem has little to do with "hardcounters" but with a lack of interesting interaction, or in the PvT case a lack of anything that you can reallly go for to punish immortals, which in return may reduce the immortal count that Ps can go for vs Mech, which then means you may actually be able to counter immortals with tanks by sheer numbers, unless he does something interesting (target fire, dropping into the tanks) with them. | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
Depends from what angle you are looking, but HotS is just a lot better game, where a lot more units are used and there are a lot more strategies overall. Maybe there are match-ups that are worse(TvT for example) but majority of them are better. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
thing is, that has little to do with hardcounters. take roach vs roach, it's perfectly balanced, not counter relation. Same problem, there is little you can do in terms of control. same goes for marines vs marines. But then you introduce a counter unit to be added to the marine army (e.g. hellions early or tanks), and suddenly the combats become much more interesting, since suddenly you get all those sniping micro and all the disengaging from tanks etc. Yeh I don't disagree here. I think in general the whole concept of "hardcounters" is extremely overrated, rather I just nitpicked by saying Marine vs Banelings certainly isn't an hardcounter. We should definitely instead focus on what creates fun microinteractions instead of whether unit x hardcounters unit Y. I am reading this thread, and all these people commenting on how WoL was a better game, Jesus people really have short memory... Depends from what angle you are looking, but HotS is just a lot better game, where a lot more units are used and there are a lot more strategies overall. Maybe there are match-ups that are worse(TvT for example) but majority of them are better. I think it was the part about WOL being discovered/figured out and all the hype about WOL back then that people enjoyed. But when the meta finally got figured out, the game sucked big times. HOTS today is miles above what WOL ever was in terms of game quality. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1341 Posts
thats spot on: too strong drops mean everything but mutas force Z in a very bad and purely defensive position. (apart from hydras being too weak). also especially mass banes on creep are way too strong while they are way too weak offcreep. what nerchio forgot to mention is that T needs a way to transition into a stronger lategame after going bio. | ||
|
playa
United States1284 Posts
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is..... | ||
|
Nerchio
Poland2633 Posts
On July 06 2014 20:36 Decendos wrote: Acer.Nerchio: Yes, i think drops are too powerful and zerg is too weak outside of creep while being too strong on creep. thats spot on: too strong drops mean everything but mutas force Z in a very bad and purely defensive position. (apart from hydras being too weak). also especially mass banes on creep are way too strong while they are way too weak offcreep. what nerchio forgot to mention is that T needs a way to transition into a stronger lategame after going bio. I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On July 06 2014 20:38 playa wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing. I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is..... It's fucking boring to play mech. I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either. It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers. | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
On July 06 2014 20:43 Hider wrote: It's fucking boring to play mech. It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers. I don't think sc2 mech will be fun to play, unless vultures and spidermines are added into the game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On July 06 2014 20:48 royalroadweed wrote: I don't think sc2 mech will be fun to play, unless vultures and spidermines are added into the game. Well you just need to be able to play aggressively with mech. Copying the exact BW units aren't necceasary to do that. What instead could be done is to reduce transformation time of Vikings/hellbat-Hellions in order to encourage more aggressive use of them. Right now static defense kills terran harass too effectively, but if; A) Hellion to hellbat transformation was a lot faster, and B) Hellbat dealt more damage to armored than vs light, then you use Hellions to get into range of the armored unts/static defense and then transform which would make terran harassplay a lot stronger. Further, I happen to believe that Banshee's are too slow in the later game. Both Mutas and Overseers are faster than Banshee's, which kinda makes them useless later game (and that applies to them vs all races). I think there could have been a speed-upgrade for this unit (perhaps the upgrade could increase the speed of Ravens as well). There are definitely a ton of variables that could be tweaked, and Sc2 actually has a lot of good ideas that were just hopelessly implemented. If Blizzard really spent the time on LOTV to tweak values of all units in order to encourage aggression, maintaining/increasing defenders advantage and improving micro-interactions, mech could be incredible fun I believe. You can even create microinteractons through the Thor transformations against Carrier interceptors (like transformation the thor back and fourth betwen splash mode and AA armored mode). Actually mech is already really fun to play vs bio in Sc2 for a couple of reasons; 1) Static defense/bunkers doens't hardcounter mech harass. 2) Mech can be aggressive in midgame, unlike in WOL as the Hellbat makes it stronger in lower numers. 3) Mech is more microintensive through Hellbat drops during battles. | ||
|
cmdspinner1
140 Posts
On July 06 2014 20:57 Hider wrote: Well you just need to be able to play aggressively with mech. Copying the exact BW units aren't necceasary to do that. What instead could be done is to reduce transformation time of Vikings/hellbat-Hellions in order to encourage more aggressive use of them. Right now static defense kills terran harass too effectively, but if; A) Hellion to hellbat transformation was a lot faster, and B) Hellbat dealt more damage to armored than vs light, then you use Hellions to get into range of the armored unts/static defense and then transform which would make terran harassplay a lot stronger. Further, I happen to believe that Banshee's are too slow in the later game. Both Mutas and Overseers are faster than Banshee's, which kinda makes them useless later game (and that applies to them vs all races). I think there could have been a speed-upgrade for this unit (perhaps the upgrade could increase the speed of Ravens as well). There are definitely a ton of variables that could be tweaked, and Sc2 actually has a lot of good ideas that were just hopelessly implemented. If Blizzard really spent the time on LOTV to tweak values of all units in order to encourage aggression, maintaining/increasing defenders advantage and improving micro-interactions, mech could be incredible fun I believe. You can even create microinteractons through the Thor transformations against Carrier interceptors (like transformation the thor back and fourth betwen splash mode and AA armored mode). Actually mech is already really fun to play vs bio in Sc2 for a couple of reasons; 1) Static defense/bunkers doens't hardcounter mech harass. 2) Mech can be aggressive in midgame, unlike in WOL as the Hellbat makes it stronger in lower numers. 3) Mech is more microintensive through Hellbat drops during battles. 100% agree as a mech player. I love playing mech vs bio and even mech vs mech. Also Bio vs mech is really balanced although using different units. But you have to turtle so hard vs Zerg and Protoss because of mech's weaknesses that i despise these matchups. | ||
| ||
