|
On July 22 2014 01:05 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 17:52 VArsovskiSC wrote:@pure.Wasted - finally you got my point  (I was refering a reply to the "Happy's Terran being better players overall" statement discussion from above, so that's why I started they way I did before) @Teoita - the REAL difference between the Reaver and the Colo is that Colo can happily kept in the army all game long, whilest Reavers were usually effective while comming from the flanks, so - that's the real difference, doesn't have to be exactly the reaver, but still - something that will do best splash damage if coming from the rears or flanks of sth (although Templars do that already, it would still be a better for the game-dynamic for it to do so rather than being best while kept in the deathball) Maybe if colossus fired more in a forward pattern ( V or X ) rather than two beams that perfectly overlap the front lines... (think of how hellion flanks/micro work).
The potentials are limitless.. Anything that would make Colossus better to be on the outside instead of in the "fray" would solve the problem.. Ideas can range from very simple, to very crazy and still work.. I kinda prefer to try the "crazy ones" first, but I guess my head can go utterly crazy sometimes man..
The downsite of the V or X is that that's kinda "gimmick" cause you'll never be able to target well
A simple "|" line just like the hellion would work quite well as well, or a double "||" one, but yeah - anything might be already "somewhat" better in terms of gameplay dynamic, still - the Colo is a very intuitively made unit, which must congratulate Blizz for that - they're like really damn good at making a unit intuitive on what it does just by having a look at it's model (well maybe except the Overlord, rofl, those things look like they could kick some serious ass  )..
But still - why not try the "crazy stuff at first" before anything as simple (but really need a bunch of very good editor tutorials for that)
|
On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years.
I'm not arguing either way, I'm just trying to illustrate how hard it is to buff terran without breaking the early/mid game because of the incredible potency of the marine. I'm probably not doing the best job, but maybe some high level terran insight on the matter could be useful.
|
On July 22 2014 00:49 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 00:32 gneGne wrote:On July 22 2014 00:07 Big J wrote:On July 21 2014 23:55 gneGne wrote:
What is wrong with the marine? [1]It has been balanced in context of the zealot and the zergling. I don't see the problem, please explain further? [2] If you would like a different role for the marine then you basicly need to redo all three races. Basicly the whole game. [1] I think before anybody can answer to you, you have to explain what you mean with this phrase. Because cost for cost and supply for supply, marines beat zealots and zerglings in any mid-high amount. And timingwise, marine+wall completely crushes those units before those high amounts are reached. [2] I don't know why. If you were to change the marine to a unit that e.g. works well against light but not so well against armored, and compensated Terran with slightly better armored counters (e.g. stronger tanks and moving-shot vikings vs air), I don't see why you'd have to redo the other races. Maybe a tiny tweak here or there to prevent early stalker or roach rushes to kill you, but this could surely be done without redoing the other races. (similarily to how you could change FFs or Swarm Hosts without having to change Terran) I am not quite sure where you get (1) from. If you are talking about mid-to-high amounts of marines, you are already talking about mid game where I presume not the marines themselves, but the combination with medivacs are the problem which make marines so cost effective? However, the same can be said here about units in combination with zealots and zerglings. Timingwise I also see no problem, are you really saying that pushes against terran are impossible because of supply/bunker walls? As for (2), if you feel the need to introduce a new way in which the damage of the marine works, you have to do the same for zealots and zerglings against armored units. Or would it be fair that only terran has to build an army that counters either armour or light while zerg and protoss don't have to because their basic unit are one size fits all? It is an interesting option, but it would involve changing all three races like I mentioned. Again, tell me what you meant with (1). If you bring other units in the equation, I don't see what the whole point is to first say "Marines are balanced in the context of Zerglings/Zealots". So, what do you mean with this phrase? In what way are they balanced against Zerglings and Zealots? About (2), just because a unit stat says "+ vs armored/light", doesn't mean the unit is bad against something else (e.g. blink stalkers). Or vis verca. Just for a lot of those units, the "+ vs something" values tend to be mid to high, while something like 5+1vs light on marines would still leave them as a decent all around unit. And you could keep the zealot at 8*2damage vs everything, because it isn't a decent all around unit to begin with (no antiair at all; melee attribute making it weak against bigger ranged balls, etc). In either case, you will want something more against a blink rush.
On (1): Let me make it really simple. If the marine would be way more powerful than zerglings or zealots, we would see a lot of Terrans just win a lot in the early game because the few units available for P and Z (zealot and zergling) would get demolished. Well, let's take an example, we have the 11/11 build against Z which is built around the effectiveness of the marine, but its not invincible and requires a greedy Z and intensive micro battles to be really successful. Against P the 11/11 build can work but is overall even less effective than against Z.
On (2): I am not quite sure where you are getting at, but you claim zealots and zerglings are not good all around units? I have to disagree, they are useful throughout the whole game, especially versus Terran all pro players use them in the late game. Indeed, only terrans basic unit can target air (still air is used a lot vs T), there are main differences in how the 3 races operate, but that is a challenge Blizzard is willing to work with.
|
On July 22 2014 01:37 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years. Maybe in order to buff other terran units and encourage more diverse ways of plain terran. Nobody is saying that marines would be nerfed into oblivion.
You know that even a little nerf like making the unit having 5 less hp, or only 5 atk would pose enormous problem at every stage of the game right ?
|
On July 22 2014 01:44 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:37 RaFox17 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years. Maybe in order to buff other terran units and encourage more diverse ways of plain terran. Nobody is saying that marines would be nerfed into oblivion. You know that even a little nerf like making the unit having 5 less hp, or only 5 atk would pose enormous problem at every stage of the game right ?
That´s why you would buff other stuff as every terran has been screaming for a long time. Not saying it would be easy.
|
On July 22 2014 01:46 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:37 RaFox17 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years. Maybe in order to buff other terran units and encourage more diverse ways of plain terran. Nobody is saying that marines would be nerfed into oblivion. You know that even a little nerf like making the unit having 5 less hp, or only 5 atk would pose enormous problem at every stage of the game right ? That´s why you would buff other stuff as every terran has been screaming for a long time. Not saying it would be easy.
No, since terran is forced to make marine in the early game, whatever he want to do after, it would be something like 100% lose at the 5min mark against everything.
|
On July 22 2014 01:09 ColtraneL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 00:37 Squat wrote:On July 21 2014 23:55 gneGne wrote:
What is wrong with the marine? It has been balanced in context of the zealot and the zergling. I don't see the problem, please explain further? If you would like a different role for the marine then you basicly need to redo all three races. Basicly the whole game. It hasn't quite been balanced the way you suggest. The marine is far more powerful than both the zergling and the zealot and therein lies the problem. It is a cheap, very accessible unit that can be massed and is very dangerous for a large portion of the game, and it requires high tech, gas intensive units to counter effectively. Zealots and lings can get shut down by roaches, static defense, forcefields etc. Marines with a few medivacs don't really care about any of those. Maybe the reason why marines are so much better than lings and zealots is purely due to the way early game was at the beginning of the game? Like lings being very easily massed early into baneling bust where the terran would not be able to do anything with a more even unit because he can only get those units one at a time. Maybe also a reaction to the heavily used 4gates at the time. I mean people were often displeased by the marines in 2011 as well but a lot of time it was assumed that the reason was terrible mechanics in warp gate and larvaes.
I think they just put in values that were satisfying against a lot of units and then created a rule to never tinker with these T1 units again. But then they changed the other units and many relations just dont work out anymore as intended. E.g. 1armor less for roaches were a huge blow to them vs marines. Originally (i tested this) roach vs marine could go either way in costequal bigger armies and even upgrades. It feels a lot like a lot of those seemingly random values like 145roach HP and especially attack cooldowns were chosen upon creating equilibria and micro relations with other basic units. By nerfing such stats during WoL and its beta, they removed a ton of army equilibria which left the unchanged units in many scenarios without a broad amount of counters.
Obviously, some balance changes have to be made but I think in some cases they just lacked the balls to also do follow up changes to keep intended relationships between units alive.
|
On July 22 2014 01:47 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:46 RaFox17 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:37 RaFox17 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years. Maybe in order to buff other terran units and encourage more diverse ways of plain terran. Nobody is saying that marines would be nerfed into oblivion. You know that even a little nerf like making the unit having 5 less hp, or only 5 atk would pose enormous problem at every stage of the game right ? That´s why you would buff other stuff as every terran has been screaming for a long time. Not saying it would be easy. No, since terran is forced to make marine in the early game, whatever he want to do after, it would be something like 100% lose at the 5min mark against everything.
Then you could maybe pull back 3-3 upgrade strength so that marines keep their strength in the early-midgame?
|
On July 22 2014 01:37 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years. Maybe in order to buff other terran units and encourage more diverse ways of plain terran. Nobody is saying that marines would be nerfed into oblivion.
...If you buff non-bio you encourage terrans to not get stim, medivacs and bio upgrades. Without those marines aren't much of a threat.
|
On July 22 2014 01:51 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:37 RaFox17 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years. Maybe in order to buff other terran units and encourage more diverse ways of plain terran. Nobody is saying that marines would be nerfed into oblivion. ...If you buff non-bio you encourage terrans to not get stim, medivacs and bio upgrades. Without those marines aren't much of a threat.
Nerfing would not mean totally killing them. Z uses roach/hydra sometimes and still use ling/bling/muta often even though they have different upgrade paths. Also ling speed is almost always researched even when going roach or hydra. Wouldn´t the best situation be when terran would have many options rather than only bio?
|
On July 22 2014 01:49 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:47 Faust852 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:46 RaFox17 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:44 Faust852 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:37 RaFox17 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years. Maybe in order to buff other terran units and encourage more diverse ways of plain terran. Nobody is saying that marines would be nerfed into oblivion. You know that even a little nerf like making the unit having 5 less hp, or only 5 atk would pose enormous problem at every stage of the game right ? That´s why you would buff other stuff as every terran has been screaming for a long time. Not saying it would be easy. No, since terran is forced to make marine in the early game, whatever he want to do after, it would be something like 100% lose at the 5min mark against everything. Then you could maybe pull back 3-3 upgrade strength so that marines keep their strength in the early-midgame?
Or you just don't touch anything at a core unit that show absolutly no problem of balance is in fact the most well designed unit of all time ?
If you want to give more opportunity to the terran, just make that mech is stronger in the midgame against P and Z and that's it. Make also late game terrans units worth its cost and here we go, terran will use all of their units.
The marine is the best unit by far in terme of design, it scale hugely with the skill, it has a lot of slowcounters and even hardcounter that can be bypassed by micro. And a single nerf to te marine would result in months if not years of imbalance and that's annoying as fuck. Leave the marine be.
You don't have to nerf an unit to make the other more viable.
All in all zerg has only 3 composition too. glingbanemuta=> ultras/bl, roachhydra=>viper and SHmuta against mech.
Terran has 4m, mech, biomech. Do something in sort that mech is stronger in midgame and here we go, you would have more mech and biomech games.
|
On July 22 2014 01:43 gneGne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 00:49 Big J wrote:On July 22 2014 00:32 gneGne wrote:On July 22 2014 00:07 Big J wrote:On July 21 2014 23:55 gneGne wrote:
What is wrong with the marine? [1]It has been balanced in context of the zealot and the zergling. I don't see the problem, please explain further? [2] If you would like a different role for the marine then you basicly need to redo all three races. Basicly the whole game. [1] I think before anybody can answer to you, you have to explain what you mean with this phrase. Because cost for cost and supply for supply, marines beat zealots and zerglings in any mid-high amount. And timingwise, marine+wall completely crushes those units before those high amounts are reached. [2] I don't know why. If you were to change the marine to a unit that e.g. works well against light but not so well against armored, and compensated Terran with slightly better armored counters (e.g. stronger tanks and moving-shot vikings vs air), I don't see why you'd have to redo the other races. Maybe a tiny tweak here or there to prevent early stalker or roach rushes to kill you, but this could surely be done without redoing the other races. (similarily to how you could change FFs or Swarm Hosts without having to change Terran) I am not quite sure where you get (1) from. If you are talking about mid-to-high amounts of marines, you are already talking about mid game where I presume not the marines themselves, but the combination with medivacs are the problem which make marines so cost effective? However, the same can be said here about units in combination with zealots and zerglings. Timingwise I also see no problem, are you really saying that pushes against terran are impossible because of supply/bunker walls? As for (2), if you feel the need to introduce a new way in which the damage of the marine works, you have to do the same for zealots and zerglings against armored units. Or would it be fair that only terran has to build an army that counters either armour or light while zerg and protoss don't have to because their basic unit are one size fits all? It is an interesting option, but it would involve changing all three races like I mentioned. Again, tell me what you meant with (1). If you bring other units in the equation, I don't see what the whole point is to first say "Marines are balanced in the context of Zerglings/Zealots". So, what do you mean with this phrase? In what way are they balanced against Zerglings and Zealots? About (2), just because a unit stat says "+ vs armored/light", doesn't mean the unit is bad against something else (e.g. blink stalkers). Or vis verca. Just for a lot of those units, the "+ vs something" values tend to be mid to high, while something like 5+1vs light on marines would still leave them as a decent all around unit. And you could keep the zealot at 8*2damage vs everything, because it isn't a decent all around unit to begin with (no antiair at all; melee attribute making it weak against bigger ranged balls, etc). In either case, you will want something more against a blink rush. On (1): Let me make it really simple. If the marine would be way more powerful than zerglings or zealots, we would see a lot of Terrans just win a lot in the early game because the few units available for P and Z (zealot and zergling) would get demolished. Well, let's take an example, we have the 11/11 build against Z which is built around the effectiveness of the marine, but its not invincible and requires a greedy Z and intensive micro battles to be really successful. Against P the 11/11 build can work but is overall even less effective than against Z. On (2): I am not quite sure where you are getting at, but you claim zealots and zerglings are not good all around units? I have to disagree, they are useful throughout the whole game, especially versus Terran all pro players use them in the late game. Indeed, only terrans basic unit can target air (still air is used a lot vs T), there are main differences in how the 3 races operate, but that is a challenge Blizzard is willing to work with.
(1) two words: defender's advantage. And also that marines a ranged and while in the early game zerglings/zealots hold their own or in really tiny amounts can even beat marines, the marine's true power against those units shows in the 10s and higher amounts. That doesnt mean they are bad, imo zerglings are very good (due to their speed). But yes, this fact also helps to prevent early game marine builds from winning easily.
(2) There's a difference between an all around unit and a unit being useful. The fact that it is basically impossible to spend your money without building mineral only units once you mix in tech units makes zerglings/zealots useful.
The difference is that Zs and Ps build certain units and then also build zerglings/zealots because they have money that cannot be spent differently and the game being balanced around spending your money. While Terrans build marines and then eventually sit on a gasbank because it is better to build mineralonly units than to build more expensive units and fill what's left with marines.
It leads to weird scenarios in which a Terran rather builds 2.5marines for 125/0 and stores gas (or doesnt mine at full efficiency to begin with) instead of building one tank for 125/100. Because the one unit is just so much better that you Double the cost doesnt even mean more power.
|
On July 22 2014 02:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:43 gneGne wrote:On July 22 2014 00:49 Big J wrote:On July 22 2014 00:32 gneGne wrote:On July 22 2014 00:07 Big J wrote:On July 21 2014 23:55 gneGne wrote:
What is wrong with the marine? [1]It has been balanced in context of the zealot and the zergling. I don't see the problem, please explain further? [2] If you would like a different role for the marine then you basicly need to redo all three races. Basicly the whole game. [1] I think before anybody can answer to you, you have to explain what you mean with this phrase. Because cost for cost and supply for supply, marines beat zealots and zerglings in any mid-high amount. And timingwise, marine+wall completely crushes those units before those high amounts are reached. [2] I don't know why. If you were to change the marine to a unit that e.g. works well against light but not so well against armored, and compensated Terran with slightly better armored counters (e.g. stronger tanks and moving-shot vikings vs air), I don't see why you'd have to redo the other races. Maybe a tiny tweak here or there to prevent early stalker or roach rushes to kill you, but this could surely be done without redoing the other races. (similarily to how you could change FFs or Swarm Hosts without having to change Terran) I am not quite sure where you get (1) from. If you are talking about mid-to-high amounts of marines, you are already talking about mid game where I presume not the marines themselves, but the combination with medivacs are the problem which make marines so cost effective? However, the same can be said here about units in combination with zealots and zerglings. Timingwise I also see no problem, are you really saying that pushes against terran are impossible because of supply/bunker walls? As for (2), if you feel the need to introduce a new way in which the damage of the marine works, you have to do the same for zealots and zerglings against armored units. Or would it be fair that only terran has to build an army that counters either armour or light while zerg and protoss don't have to because their basic unit are one size fits all? It is an interesting option, but it would involve changing all three races like I mentioned. Again, tell me what you meant with (1). If you bring other units in the equation, I don't see what the whole point is to first say "Marines are balanced in the context of Zerglings/Zealots". So, what do you mean with this phrase? In what way are they balanced against Zerglings and Zealots? About (2), just because a unit stat says "+ vs armored/light", doesn't mean the unit is bad against something else (e.g. blink stalkers). Or vis verca. Just for a lot of those units, the "+ vs something" values tend to be mid to high, while something like 5+1vs light on marines would still leave them as a decent all around unit. And you could keep the zealot at 8*2damage vs everything, because it isn't a decent all around unit to begin with (no antiair at all; melee attribute making it weak against bigger ranged balls, etc). In either case, you will want something more against a blink rush. On (1): Let me make it really simple. If the marine would be way more powerful than zerglings or zealots, we would see a lot of Terrans just win a lot in the early game because the few units available for P and Z (zealot and zergling) would get demolished. Well, let's take an example, we have the 11/11 build against Z which is built around the effectiveness of the marine, but its not invincible and requires a greedy Z and intensive micro battles to be really successful. Against P the 11/11 build can work but is overall even less effective than against Z. On (2): I am not quite sure where you are getting at, but you claim zealots and zerglings are not good all around units? I have to disagree, they are useful throughout the whole game, especially versus Terran all pro players use them in the late game. Indeed, only terrans basic unit can target air (still air is used a lot vs T), there are main differences in how the 3 races operate, but that is a challenge Blizzard is willing to work with. (1) two words: defender's advantage. And also that marines a ranged and while in the early game zerglings/zealots hold their own or in really tiny amounts can even beat marines, the marine's true power against those units shows in the 10s and higher amounts. That doesnt mean they are bad, imo zerglings are very good (due to their speed). But yes, this fact also helps to prevent early game marine builds from winning easily. (2) There's a difference between an all around unit and a unit being useful. The fact that it is basically impossible to spend your money without building mineral only units once you mix in tech units makes zerglings/zealots useful. The difference is that Zs and Ps build certain units and then also build zerglings/zealots because they have money that cannot be spent differently and the game being balanced around spending your money. While Terrans build marines and then eventually sit on a gasbank because it is better to build mineralonly units than to build more expensive units and fill what's left with marines. It leads to weird scenarios in which a Terran rather builds 2.5marines for 125/0 and stores gas (or doesnt mine at full efficiency to begin with) instead of building one tank for 125/100. Because the one unit is just so much better that you Double the cost doesnt even mean more power.
Maybe they keep making marine because they upgraded them and so they are much more powerful than some 3 supply tank with only +1 attack ? Maybe because the tank is just useless as fuck in TvP ?
And FYI, terran weren't that much banking gaz before the huge ghost change back in the days where they made it cost 200/100 instead of 150/150.
And terran only start banking gaz once they are maxed, not before.
The problem with the gaz bank is that we don't have powerful gaz dump like HT or Infestor. Give us a strong spellcaster that cost a lot of gaz and you will see how this bank will plummet
|
On July 22 2014 00:57 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 00:41 gneGne wrote:
Yes, maybe. But notice... WITH medivacs. Wouldn't that be a problem with the medivac rather than the marine? Zerglings and Zealots are really strong too when accompanied with other supporting units. Aren't you making an unfair comparison? No, this is not quite correct. Lings and zealots do not gain exponential power when supported by medivacs the way marines do, they just don't have the offensive output or versatility to make use of that healing and mobility like marines do. Just try it, play a 2v2 and support bunch of lings and zealots with medivacs, it's not the same thing. The basic units of zerg and protoss really are nowhere near as strong as the marine, as any pro game will show. Just because marines also require medivacs to operate at full capacity, it does not make them less strong. You can still fight far more gas heavy armies with marines as your main combat unit. We could substitute the medivac with the medic and the same thing would apply. Medivacs are a general support unit that benefit anything they can heal, obviously more powerful units will get more out of the healing. Show nested quote +See, choices were made when the basic units were put into the game. They chose to make the basic units really strong from the early to the late game (when accompanied by other units). This was a design choice which you may agree or disagree with, but it was a fundamental choice. You have no idea whether that is the case or not. The only people who would know for sure are those who would seriously attempt to implement a change like this. Simply asserting that such is the case does not make it true.
Wait, are you proposing to balance on basis of involving the mixing of units from the three races? I don't think you will get much out of that, at least if you intend to keep three different races. And in my eyes, any pro game, of all the three races, involve using the basic unit, I don't see how this can be denied (just think about zerg remax on lings and zealot harass late late game).
Of course requiring another unit supporting the marine to be viable in the mid game makes them less strong! Medivacs are exactly those expensive units that require gas you know! Without medivacs marines are nothing in the mid game, I think you underestimate medivacs. Most expensive gas heavy armies have no problem against pure marine/medivac compositions. The only thing you could argue is that splitting marines is too powerful against banelings? MKP should probably win a lot of titles  .
On your last remark; that was exactly my point. You could of course try to implement the change making the basic units ineffective in the later stages, but it would require a fundamental revision of the entire game. I don't even think an expansion could do that. Maybe in StarCraft 3 if you would want that?
|
On July 22 2014 01:56 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:51 y0su wrote:On July 22 2014 01:37 RaFox17 wrote:On July 22 2014 01:31 Faust852 wrote:
Why people would want a redesign of the marine while it's the unit in itself that make the best games in history of sc2. That's stupid.
And even a minimal change to the marine would completly break the game for years. Maybe in order to buff other terran units and encourage more diverse ways of plain terran. Nobody is saying that marines would be nerfed into oblivion. ...If you buff non-bio you encourage terrans to not get stim, medivacs and bio upgrades. Without those marines aren't much of a threat. Nerfing would not mean totally killing them. Z uses roach/hydra sometimes and still use ling/bling/muta often even though they have different upgrade paths. Also ling speed is almost always researched even when going roach or hydra. Wouldn´t the best situation be when terran would have many options rather than only bio?
When does zerg use roach/hydra AND ling/bling/muta?
My point is you don't need to nerf marines in order to buff something else. Buffing something else would DISCOURAGE marine usage. Without the useful buffs (and medivac production) marines are not an issue and wouldn't require nerfs.
(or do you believe marines simply need a nerf?)
|
I think to say that the Marine is perfect and not a source of balance issues at all (as Faust has been saying) is really baseless and unjustified.
The reason that Protoss needs units like the Colossus and Templar (w/ Storm) is because without dishing out ridiculous AoE, there is nothing that can handle Stimmed bio + Medivacs. A Medivac heals a Marine faster than a Stalker can kill it 1v1..
When you take AoE damage out of the equation, it's almost beneficial for a Terran bio ball to clump up and 1A. The bigger the clump, the less surface area Melee units such as Zerglings and Zealots can get on it (as the Marines in the middle can't be reached) whereas all the Melee units are being shot at.
It's very very very difficult to design a game in which both Mech and Bio are viable against Z, T, and P. If you recall, Brood War bio was unusable vs. Protoss. You had to mech.
|
On July 22 2014 02:35 DinoMight wrote:
I think to say that the Marine is perfect and not a source of balance issues at all is really baseless and unjustified.
The reason that Protoss needs units like the Colossus and Templar (w/ Storm) is because without dishing out ridiculous AoE, there is nothing that can handle Stimmed bio + Medivacs. A Medivac heals a Marine faster than a Stalker can kill it 1v1..
It's very very very difficult to design a game in which both Mech and Bio are viable against Z, T, and P. If you recall, Brood War bio was unusable vs. Protoss. You had to mech.
I'm pretty sure you can win without HT and colossi. There are some 2/2 zealot archons that rekt bio like it was nothing. (ofc now there is the WM but without it it's almost impossible to old this compo without a fuckton of bunker and a wall. And guess what ? it's only gateway units.
And btw, blink allin is only stalker and deal pretty well against bio for a while.
|
On July 22 2014 01:43 gneGne wrote:
If the marine would be way more powerful than zerglings or zealots, we would see a lot of Terrans just win a lot in the early game because the few units available for P and Z (zealot and zergling) would get demolished.
Which is exactly why Protoss needs to make sentries or stalkers (or nexus cannon) to help defend against marines/ any early pressure. The fact that marines are ranged units and can micro around zealots is exactly why zealots can't beat marines by themselves. As for zerglings... well, they need zergling speed or to be on creep to get a surround, and they defend early all-ins with queens and spines too.
So Protoss and Zerg hold early pressure *not* because a bunch of zealots or zerglings can beat a bunch of marines in a straight up fight between pros, but because they also use gas units or defensive structures to help supplement their tier one units.
|
On July 22 2014 02:38 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 02:35 DinoMight wrote:
I think to say that the Marine is perfect and not a source of balance issues at all is really baseless and unjustified.
The reason that Protoss needs units like the Colossus and Templar (w/ Storm) is because without dishing out ridiculous AoE, there is nothing that can handle Stimmed bio + Medivacs. A Medivac heals a Marine faster than a Stalker can kill it 1v1..
It's very very very difficult to design a game in which both Mech and Bio are viable against Z, T, and P. If you recall, Brood War bio was unusable vs. Protoss. You had to mech.
I'm pretty sure you can win without HT and colossi. There are some 2/2 zealot archons that rekt bio like it was nothing. (ofc now there is the WM but without it it's almost impossible to old this compo without a fuckton of bunker and a wall. And guess what ? it's only gateway units. And btw, blink allin is only stalker and deal pretty well against bio for a while.
Short of an allin timing that hits before Terran gets critical mass I'm pretty sure this is impossible. Plus when you factor in that Widow Mines exist and that they're getting buffed...Point is that there is no macro strategy viable for P without Colossi or Storm because of the Marine. So to say that the unit is "perfectly designed" ... well, that's debatable.
|
On July 22 2014 02:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 01:43 gneGne wrote:
If the marine would be way more powerful than zerglings or zealots, we would see a lot of Terrans just win a lot in the early game because the few units available for P and Z (zealot and zergling) would get demolished. Which is exactly why Protoss needs to make sentries or stalkers (or nexus cannon) to help defend against marines/ any early pressure. The fact that marines are ranged units and can micro around zealots is exactly why zealots can't beat marines by themselves. As for zerglings... well, they need zergling speed or to be on creep to get a surround, and they defend early all-ins with queens and spines too. So Protoss and Zerg hold early pressure *not* because a bunch of zealots or zerglings can beat a bunch of marines in a straight up fight between pros, but because they also use gas units or defensive structures to help supplement their tier one units.
and terran use bunkers? This is a stupid reasoning. A bunker rush against a pool first is almost autolose and it's only zerg. Terran does not just win with marines. They use scv to tank, build bunkers, buy time, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
