|
On July 12 2014 13:03 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 12:34 EngrishTeacher wrote:On July 12 2014 12:32 Twine wrote:
I really think they should buff tanks (building time and damages) instead of mines. It would maybe make TvP interesting with tanks bio against colossus and mines bio vs hts chargelots. And, tanks are less of a random unit than mines.
As for the TW change ... Hell, it's about time.
I'm curious to see how the AA priority will work in TvT (focusins vikings/medivacs instead of tanks, etc..) Really tired of hearing this argument when people fail to consider TvT. Please do post a viable and not-completely-quirky solution that limits the tank buffs to vs. P and Z only. So, what's the gripe here? You think tanks would be too strong in TvT if they were buffed? Bio spam would be less effective? Games would turn into positional wars and/or turtles? Is that the fear? Maybe that's not what your concern is (and if it isn't, please clarify); but if it is well man, I've gotta disagree. TvT was fantastic in BW and tanks shit all over infantry in that one. I think SC2 needs something to mix up the strats. I'd love to see more TvT mech to air strats. I'm tired of bio, bio, bio in every tournament or every game I play on b.net. Tweaking mines, Thors, and the MC are silly changes. Mines are boring and only facilitate more MMMWM (bio) play (yawn). Thor targeting is ridiculous - where's the micro? That's part of the game! And the MC nerf? Please, all the damage is done in the first 5-10 seconds. Terran needs a complete overhaul. I agree with those who want to see a tank buff.
Not even just BW, WoL had some legit TvT with Marine/Tank vs Marine Tank. That was so damn tactical I had my fair share of amazing games.
|
IMO, I'm all for tanks/thors buffs in terms of building time/cost/supply reduction. The mechanics of Terrans in SC2 leads the race to have the most faster tech-paths as well as the biggest vulnerability to tech-switch/remax.
With some changes like that for mech/air, it encourages aggressive play and trade-army, (although it may need some raven nerf, which IMO is already needed, and/or some buff to anti-bio units). Which terrans are already used to, it could also make biomech compositions more viable, while not creating by mistake some imbalances timings. In terms of late-late game, against P it'll make the terran play like a zerg, while TvZ will be around 50/50 brute force/multitask based games.
It may not be the best way to improve terran match-ups, but it is the most easy way, I don't want bio to be = mech, but it could lead to bio-mech more easily usable. While pure-mech would work more like BW.
It's that or make Mech/sky units uber-strong but upgrades for more expensive and/or long to build.
|
Italy12247 Posts
On July 14 2014 01:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2014 00:47 Teoita wrote:On July 13 2014 18:49 Big J wrote:
Could someone please explain for once that "can't break PvP" argument for me.
Like, break down the current metagame for me, that it so great?
Because what I see from current PvPs it is one of the following
-) 1gate-->blink-->semiallinish to allinish aggression
-) 1gate-->Stargate-->reactive 1base play or allin
-) 1gate-->DT-->semiallinish to allinish aggression
-) 3gate-->allin
And in WoL it was something like:
-) defensive robo-->expand
-) offensive blink+obs-->semiallinish to allinish aggression
-) 3-4 gateway allin
-) DTs
I don't really get what the problem would be if you couldn't 1gate-->blink allin anymore. Great, you would now have to use the weaker 3-4gate as your 1base allin. You couldn't coinflip DTs as often, since the metagame would be more oracle and robo focused if you can't get a ridiculous early blink, great.
Like, a nerf to the PO would probably only shift the metagame from the one 1base builds to the others. It's not like we have any forms of early macro builds that need the PO. Those 1gate expands have very quickly fallen out of style and are currently nearly nonexistant, given that they lose to basically every tech opening or at least are forced into a nexus cancel if the other side executes properly. There is a huge amount of variation in there. All the builds you listed can be played either as a lighter pressure, a committed allin, or just an aggressive timing, depending on follow up tech, risks taken (going robo vs not going robo, going sentry first to scout, number of early game units before tech, etc), and most importantly constant probe production. It's not as simple as picking one tech path, the way that tech path is played also heavily changes the outcome of a game. In fact, modern blink builds are on average very defensive. The issue with phasing out blink is that, out of those, it's the most reliable build, because the success of the aggression is determined more by both players' execution, rather than some random bo decision/early game counter. Stargate mirrors as a counter example are coinflippy as fuck, (and also very boring to play) as the player that decides to skip oracle for phoenix will come out miles ahead of oracle first builds, the player that gambles and skips a robo is usually ahead vs whoever starts a robo, etc. Finally, being forced into stargate mirrors (the second most reliable build in terms of execution vs bo hard counters) is incredibly obnoxious because of how it plays out. The issue with PO in PvP is that it gives the defending player some semblance of defender's advantage, which has been lacking for Protoss forever. Since the oracle buff it doesnt allow for a straight up fast expansion to be defended, but at least the game can stabilize considerably more easily, hence why, for example, blink builds are only used to pressure and delay the nexus of a Stargate player, rather than being a straight up bo win after jumping past a forcefield on a ramp like it used to be in WoL. Just talking theoretically, since I believe the PO should stay as it is due to PvZ, wouldn't phasing out PO also hit Stargate/Oracle and DT builds? What you say makes sense for phasing out blink builds, but that's not the point of nerfing PO, isn't it? Going for Oracles, DTs and Blink off of 1gateway would all be much weaker, given the possibility of gateway pressure. So it's not like you lose all counters to Stargate openings, since you could just kill a stargate player with a 3-4gate, while an Oracle/Phoenix opening isn't that strong against something like a 3gate-->blink either, isn't it? Wouldn't the matchup then stabilize around something like 1-3gate+robotics and blink+3gate builds, maybe with a 2gate stalker pressure opening just to punish someone who attempts to still go for 5-7min DTs/Stargates/blink?
The annoying thing is that a safe build like 3gate > blink is still actually behind against a greedy stargate opener because blink is so late (and your safe 3 gate is useless if the opponent opens greedy). Same goes for every build really. The function of PO is to remove the coinflippiness due to how greedy someone is in the early game (to a certain extent ofc), not to remove the counters between tech that have always existed.
It's kind of hard to predict exactly how the game would settle in the long run of course, but my first reaction to an overcharge nerf is immediately "well, blink pressure is now weaker, and you can never know exactly how greedy/safe you can play".
I focused on blink builds because that's where your post was most lacking. I could have worded the whole thing much better 
|
The whole pvp defenders advantage could have been corrected much easier by implementing a better highground advantage instead of getting a unit which just affects every other matchup negatively imo.
And I dont like Blizzards approach on design either. Why dont they try to make some units actually useful and more diverse and well rounded instead of forcing players to play a certain style? Mech still is garbage after so many years of complaining. Carrier is still a piece of junk compared to BW and its awesome microbility it had there. It has been said like over a million times on this forum and on theirs but Blizzard keeps ignoring these voices and let every other unit extinct in the game.
I can already think what they will add in lotv. Just other gimmick units with niche roles but nothing that will divert to other playstyle other than MMMM and other deathball compositions. 
|
Italy12247 Posts
I think it would be just fine if they just reverted stim to 140 seconds, that way terran would have an aggressive stim-only timing, a harassment based opening (hellion/marine is actually really strong), and the standard 3rax medivac.
Unfortunately they are stubborn as hell and never revert their previous changes
|
On July 14 2014 02:02 Xequecal wrote:
The biggest Terran balance error was made before the WoL beta, and that was making marines so godlike amazing that simply making every other Terran unit suck wasn't enough to make up for it. They then had to cripple Terran production as well, (the barracks and starport convert resources into units at half the rate of a warpgate/stargate) and that STILL wasn't enough, as various marine cheeses utterly dominated early WoL.
Remember, before the recent hydra buff, the marine, a 50 mineral unit, did the same DPS as 100/50 hydralisks.
The biggest error was not making other units scale with mechanical skill the way the Marine does.
Seriously, how low are your standards? The Marine makes TvZ what it is (the best MU) single handed.
|
On July 14 2014 02:26 Teoita wrote:I think it would be just fine if they just reverted stim to 140 seconds, that way terran would have an aggressive stim-only timing, a harassment based opening (hellion/marine is actually really strong), and the standard 3rax medivac. Unfortunately they are stubborn as hell and never revert their previous changes
Fully agree!! They should have reverted it with the coming of Photon Overcharge. Still, we have to test it in practice (especially against zerg?), but overall early stim timings will rarely kill but may create opportunities to stim in and kill probes/sentries/drones effectively, in other words trade tiny groups of marines away for economy. The same as zerg can do with speed lings.
|
Personally I would like Photon Overcharge Range Nerf.
It would open up Marine Tank Timings against Protoss. Not only that but, with a Tech factory a Terran can then research Drilling claws, and this will provide a more solid Mid Game against Protoss.
I miss Tanks
|
On July 14 2014 02:26 Teoita wrote:I think it would be just fine if they just reverted stim to 140 seconds, that way terran would have an aggressive stim-only timing, a harassment based opening (hellion/marine is actually really strong), and the standard 3rax medivac. Unfortunately they are stubborn as hell and never revert their previous changes
This, exactly this. When are they going to understand that evolutions of the game sometimes require revert of changes that were once needed, but now obsolete (or that blatant mistakes like oracle speed buff should be corrected asap, but whatever) ?
|
Hmm, I was very much appalled at the oracle speed buff too at first. Now I think most good players can really minimalise damage against oracles, but very good protoss players can still show off really good oracle movement. Remember too that oracles are only really good those first minutes of the game or at most as support in early-mid game push. Later on they only function for tagging medivac drops.
|
On July 14 2014 03:49 gneGne wrote:
Hmm, I was very much appalled at the oracle speed buff too at first. Now I think most good players can really minimalise damage against oracles, but very good protoss players can still show off really good oracle movement. Remember too that oracles are only really good those first minutes of the game or at most as support in early-mid game push. Later on they only function for tagging medivac drops.
That's a sick ability. You can tag muta could, terran armies and drops. But it is still way too stong early game.
|
The whole pvp defenders advantage could have been corrected much easier by implementing a better highground advantage instead of getting a unit which just affects every other matchup negatively imo.
How would this help protosses take an expansion on maps where there are no ramp from natural to the "outside"?
|
On July 14 2014 04:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +The whole pvp defenders advantage could have been corrected much easier by implementing a better highground advantage instead of getting a unit which just affects every other matchup negatively imo. How would this help protosses take an expansion on maps where there are no ramp from natural to the "outside"?
PvP Defender's Advantage can be corrected by removing Warp Gates, removing Blink and redesigning the Stalker to be more like the Brood War Dragoon.
Unit high ground advantage is also a good idea. It's rather lame when the only benefit it offers is concealing vision to those on the low ground. Not only is that benefit negated entirely by a single unit with high ground vision which is in almost all situations but it makes the high ground on most maps rather pointless.
As for helping Protosses take an expansion, I think we need the return of Shield Batteries, either as a replacement for Forcefield on Sentries or as a spell that the Mothership Core can cast instead of Photon Overcharge.
|
On July 14 2014 04:34 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2014 03:49 gneGne wrote:
Hmm, I was very much appalled at the oracle speed buff too at first. Now I think most good players can really minimalise damage against oracles, but very good protoss players can still show off really good oracle movement. Remember too that oracles are only really good those first minutes of the game or at most as support in early-mid game push. Later on they only function for tagging medivac drops. That's a sick ability. You can tag muta could, terran armies and drops. But it is still way too stong early game.
You can use the vision ability just with tempest, otherwise is just a waste of money/build time. You can use it that way if your first oracle survives to the mid and late game.
You won't be making oracles to get vision of terrans as you'll get observers(1/3 of psi used, no energy needed, the terran doesn't know that his units are ion your vision)
You won't be making oracles vs mutas as you will be cronoboosting out phoenixes to not die... and when you have phoenixes you don't really need vision on mutas.
|
On July 14 2014 04:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +The whole pvp defenders advantage could have been corrected much easier by implementing a better highground advantage instead of getting a unit which just affects every other matchup negatively imo. How would this help protosses take an expansion on maps where there are no ramp from natural to the "outside"?
Not at all and I never claimed it would. However protoss in sc2 ruins mapdesign in general though, so it doesnt really matter.
|
On July 14 2014 07:14 Clbull wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2014 04:47 Hider wrote:The whole pvp defenders advantage could have been corrected much easier by implementing a better highground advantage instead of getting a unit which just affects every other matchup negatively imo. How would this help protosses take an expansion on maps where there are no ramp from natural to the "outside"? PvP Defender's Advantage can be corrected by removing Warp Gates, removing Blink and redesigning the Stalker to be more like the Brood War Dragoon. Unit high ground advantage is also a good idea. It's rather lame when the only benefit it offers is concealing vision to those on the low ground. Not only is that benefit negated entirely by a single unit with high ground vision which is in almost all situations but it makes the high ground on most maps rather pointless. As for helping Protosses take an expansion, I think we need the return of Shield Batteries, either as a replacement for Forcefield on Sentries or as a spell that the Mothership Core can cast instead of Photon Overcharge.
Or you know, instead of tinkering with all the mechanics in the game, you could just do it like in TvT and give each race a core defensive unit that is somewhat static and has 13range like the tank.
Oh wait, that's what the MsC provides. Well done blizzard!
|
I get a kick out of the crying and complaining in this thread when the win rates of each race aren't that unbalanced. People are acting like Blizz should take more extreme measures to fix a nearly nonexistent issue.
|
Well, most people would agree Terran is in a difficult spot right now and action is probably needed right now if we want to see other Terrans than the cream of the crop do something in tourneys. But you're right, this situation would never have occurred if people weren't crying like babies everytime something really strong arises : the widow mine would never have got nerfed and we would have stayed in the very promising pre-infamous patch 2.0.12 state of the game for much longer. I hope that with this patch we reach again a quite sound state of the game and just, at last, leave the game be and let progamers try things and figure out solutions for some fucking time.
|
On July 14 2014 07:44 ClanRH.TV wrote:
I get a kick out of the crying and complaining in this thread when the win rates of each race aren't that unbalanced. People are acting like Blizz should take more extreme measures to fix a nearly nonexistent issue.
The problems here go way past the idea of win rates.
If the game is so balanced, then why is still not fun to play for so many people?
You need a balanced and well designed game. The opposite could be true as well, you can have a game that is very fun to play, but horribly balanced.
|
We're not here to discuss design, we're here to discuss balance. Blizzard won't redesign the game in the middle of HotS, nor should they. If the game is not fun to play or watch for you in its actual state, well, you could always not do it.
As to the winrates, it has been explained several times why they don't necessarily reflect the state of the game. I would agree with you that the imbalance isn't as great as terrans would have us believe it is, but even you aren't arguing that it isn't there, so that's not the same thing as "a nearly nonexistent issue", and it's dishonest for you to say that it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
