Latest Changes to Widow Mines, Thors and Time Warp
Pro opinions: Proposed Changes (July 17 2014)
In the past six months, Blizzard has made a series of proposed balance changes to StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm. While not all of the proposed changes eventually get implemented, the TL Strategy team is always eager to reach out to Professional players to get their opinions on the changes Blizzard informs the community of. If you are interested in seeing our previous interviews regarding proposed balance changes you can click the following links: First Article;Second Article;Third Article;Fourth Article
The changes Blizzard are looking at were described by David Kim on the official Blizzard forums as follows:
Widow Mine Widow Mine going back to full splash damage and a 1.75 radius. (But they would still keep the +shields damage)
Thor Changed to prioritize their AA weapon over the AG weapon
Mothership Core: Time Warp duration decreased from 30 to 10 seconds
Do you think the widow mine splash radius change is good or bad? Does this properly address the issues Terrans are having?
EG_Xenocider: I think the widow mine splash radius is good, however Zerg over time has learned to neutralize widow mine shots. It will require testing to see whether the radius buff actually has an impact. If it works, then it can help address the problem T has (lack of T AoE vs Banes)..
BBoongBBoong: It's better than not having it but I don't think this will help out Terrans at all from the late game bio unit composition problems they're facing.
ROOT_Illusion: A widow mine buff is helpful and will help vs Zerg, but I can't help but think about the widow mine splash killing all the marines and medivacs again. I wish it did less splash damage to allied units but I'm not sure how that would balance out..
RagnaroK: It's not a bad thing that the widow mine is getting a buff, but it doesn't make sense to me that they are going back to the old widow mines. Due to the widow mine nerfs in the past, they tried to balance it out by buffing Terran mech and buffing hellbats, but if they go back to the old mines then it's going to be really difficult for Zergs to win since Terrans will have the old mines + mech buff + hellbat buff.
ROOT.Iaguz: Back before they were nerfed, widow mines were one of the few ways Terran were able to come back in TvZ. A careless Zerg could easily muck up and have a large section of their army disappear to a handful of the little buggers. And that's good for Terran, who lack a bit in this area. We're still going to have to be wary of mine dragging shenanigans but I feel for the most part this is a very positive change for Terran.
Doesn't matter much in TvT since tanks are better than mines and the unit is already good enough in TvP thanks to +shields damage. Currently you don't see the mine too much because Protoss prefer to go stalker/colossus in the early-midgame and the purpose of mines is to ensure templar openings remain mostly unusable by threatening to explode all their chargelot/archons.
mYi_StarDust: I'm not sure. I know that Terrans need a buff, but I'm worried that this may make them too strong. I won't know for sure until I play first. What I know for sure is that it will be even more difficult to utilize zealot plays and this will force out even more colossi-related openings. Actually, since the widow mine is useless once the Protoss has secured a certain composition, this will only buff the early and mid game for Terran, and do nothing for late game.
Empire_Happy: Good. In TvZ, it may help to play against ling/bane/muta. Will need to check that out though. Mines are still random and hit any amount of units, after all. In TvP, I personally don't see a mine as a viable unit versus Protoss in midgame, as getting mines makes you unable to go 2 starport or faster ghosts, for example. You simply wont have enough gas. But that buff will help those who like to do early marine/mine drops to harass Protoss economy, though it still doesn't change the fact that a mine can kill 1 probe or 10. It's pretty much luck based. I would not like to rely on strategy that is mostly based on luck.
With the full revert, it's quite big change. I think overall it's a bigger buff than before because vanilla (before full-splash nerf) mines were very strong, especially in TvZ. Though, I'll be surprised to see actually see it, as Blizzard usually never reverts their changes.
Neige: Yes. I think that this will at least help out a lot for TvZs.
Liquid_Snute: Very slightly. It can help when dealing with mass banelings, but it can hurt the Terran army just as well. It's a very subtle change when it comes to dealing with a 4-5 base Hive Zerg and it might have very little impact in the late game.
SuperNova: I think that the widow mine buff is good since it solved the power struggle that Terran faces against Zerg. But the biggest issue that Terran deals with has to do with the late-games stages in TvP. Even if we do gain additional damage against shield, widow mines are rendered useless against thermal lance upgraded colossi. I feel that the late game issues for Terran will remain the same.
mYi_Balloon: Widow mines are not good at all in TvZ so I felt that a patch was necessary. I think they did a good job. I haven't played any games with this new patch yet so I have no idea how much stronger widow mines got but I think they did an appropriate patch. But the problem with Terran is the late-game stage, so I think that this patch made the mid-game stronger for Terran so that late-game will become easier. Even though they didn't improve Terran late-game, I still think that the patch was a good call.
IM_Squirtle: I think things got more difficult for Protoss with this widow mine buff. The issue is that the fun of going zealot/templar no longer exists since we can't use that composition because of widow mines. I do not feel that this is a good change. I actually feel that things would get more fun if they would buff something else and give Terran more diversity in unit compositions.
Do you think the Thor AA weapon priority change is good or bad? Does this properly address the issues Terran is having?
EG_Xenocider: Thor weapon change is essentially useless since every competitive Terran player focuses the mutas w/ thors anyways.
ROOT_Illusion: Doesn't really affect too much in the grand scheme of things but now thors will finally shoot mutas instead of struggling between each zergling as a target.
RagnaroK: I think the thor buff is a good one. As of right now, thors tend to attack zerglings during battles so mutas can evade them with ease, but if they start attacking mutas now, then even if a Zerg wins the 200/200 battles, a similar amount of damage will have been dealt to the Zerg since the muta number will have decreased.
ROOT.Iaguz: I feel this is probably a good change but I am going to have to play with it a bit. Currently in TvZ, when Terran is moving around his bio/thor army and the Zerg rushes in, they are often too occupied splitting bio to target the thor onto the mutas, especially if the zerg has surprised him and he hasn't done much pre-splitting. Often the thor keeps trying to shoot lings and banes during all this, which is rather undesirable.
What concerns me is that Zerg will react by using overlords/seers or corrupters to soak up thor volleys which means the thors spend most of the time being bloody useless. So as I said, kinda need to see it in action before I can comment, but it's helpful.
Empire_Happy: Good. I would like to know, though, how will Blizzard make it work in reality. Either thor will be prioritizing ANY air that is ahead of them (like priority for overlords instead of ground lings), or it will be prioritizing only offensive air (priority for muta, instead of ground lings). If its secondary, which is the only "adequate" way that i can think of, should work very good. In TvZ it may help for mech mass thor vs broodlord, and, most importantly, for sudden muta ambushes, unless Zerg does a magic-box; a lot of mutas may die instantly. In TvP, I don't see any change, as mech does not work vs Protoss. But, if it will be the first option I said (not just offensive, but general air), it will be stupidly bad.
Neige: This change is something that I had hoped would come through when I was playing against Zerg with a bio + thor/hellbat composition in the past. I think this change needs to go through.
Liquid_Snute: Not sure. I know of experienced Terrans that were able to target-shoot mutas and split very well with the regular targeting priority. I haven't tried the change in the test map yet, so I don't know.
SuperNova: I think the thor attack priority change is a patch that obviously had to go through. I think this will help Terran players who have to deal with an excess number of mutas.
mYi_Balloon: I felt that Terran always had to do so many things when it came to handling TvZ battles, so I feel that this patch is a good one since it will also force Zergs to have to do many things as well. But when you decide to mech, sometimes it's not a good thing to have your thors target air units first so I won't know for sure until I play first. Still, I think it's a good patch.
IM_Squirtle: The thor change doesn't really have anything to do with Protoss so I don't really know what to say other than that I think the change is fine.
Do you think the time warp duration change is good or bad? Does this properly address the issues Terran is having?
EG_Xenocider: Time Warp duration is useless because the impact is often times felt right away, e.g. during the middle of a fight or used on a ramp during all-ins, etc.
ROOT_Illusion: I would've preferred a decrease to the amount slowed rather than the duration, but helpful nonetheless.
RagnaroK: I think 10 seconds is good. It can have a lot of influence on short battles for SC2 and I feel that MSC spells should have short durations since they can be created right after your cybernetics core finishes. I also think Terrans will now be able to handle and evade Protoss spell combinations like time warp + force fields + storm better. I also think that the blink stalker + time warp composition will be better handled by Terran as well.
ROOT.Iaguz: Well it's a Protoss nerf so, by default, I think it's good!
Definitely one of those weird changes Blizzard likes to throw out every now and then despite no one particularly asking for it (which isn't a bad thing, mind you). I feel that 10seconds is still enough time during an engagement for it to have been decided. Time warp on bunkers or ramp during a blink stalker attack, time warp outside a natural whilst stim bio or an scv pull is attacking all are mostly decided within a 10 second window.
I guess it makes it a more skillful ability since Protosses have to time and place it a bit better, but I reckon they'll get used to it quickly enough. Don't see this one making too much of a difference in TvP.
mYi_StarDust: I feel that 10 seconds is too short. It's 1/3 of the original duration. Perhaps a gradual decrease to somewhere around 20 seconds might be more proper. Maybe a rollback in mana cost might be good as well.
Empire_Happy: Good. Nerf to protoss is always good! That can help in general!
Neige: In the case of TvP, since it was so easy for Protoss to hold against mid-game Terran cheese rushes with time warp, I can't help but wonder if this will stop Protoss from being able to hold as easily.
Liquid_Snute: It depends on the problems across all match-ups. A nerf to the duration would imply that there's nothing wrong about the initial power of the time warp, but that whatever happens afterwards is too strong. If this is true, the duration has to go down. If this is not the issue, the radius and/or slowing power of time warp should be reduced for units to escape, pass through and chase more quickly.
XMG_Socke: 30 seconds always seemed a bit long for a spell like that. 10 seconds seems a bit too short. I think this does not address issues Terran might be having. In PvT, this change would only make blink all-ins (which we hardly ever see anymore anyway) weaker as well as make it harder to defend SCV pull timings. I think strengthening the already very strong SCV pull all-in is not a proper way to "address the issues Terran is having".
SuperNova: Protoss all-ins that depended on time warps were really powerful so I feel that this nerf is a good change.
mYi_Balloon: I think the decrease for time warps from 30 seconds to 10 seconds is a little too much. Honestly, I felt that 30 seconds was too long, especially during late-game battles, but I feel that early-game and mid-game will become too difficult for Protoss due to this decrease in duration. Although I do feel that the time warp needed a patch since Terran struggles in the late game, I wonder if maybe they couldn't have tried a different approach.
IM_Squirtle: I think the time warp duration decrease from 30 seconds to 10 seconds is way too drastic. I think the correct call is to decrease the duration by about 10ish seconds but 1/3 of the original is too much. I guess the patch will somewhat fix the late game issues Terrans face but I feel that this nerf is too much from a Protoss perspective.
Does the time warp change affect other Protoss matchups?
ROOT_Illusion:Protosses will have to use the spell more decisively now, rather than just throwing it down and playing around it.
RagnaroK: I feel that other races will be able to somewhat fight now with the time warp duration decrease. I think this is a good patch.
AI_Patience: I think the Mothership Core is fine right now, if the Mothership Core gets nerfed, it will be hard to win vs Zerg. In PvP, timewarp is very important, maybe an energy change would be better.
Neige: I think that perhaps this change will make a bigger influence in PvZ than TvP.
XMG_Socke: The biggest effect this change has is probably in PvZ. Any kind of early pressures, as well as 2-3 base pushes would be quite a bit weaker for Protoss. In PvP, this change should strengthen colossus play over the immortal/chargelot/archon army composition a bit.
SuperNova: Since time warp was a spell that could be utilized both offensively and defensively, I feel that all three racial matchups will now find a little more room to breathe.
mYi_Balloon: It feels like they did this time warp change to try to help out Terran late game but since time warp is also used during the early-game/mid-game stages, I feel that warp gate related pushes against Zerg will weaken. But I honestly can't think of a way to decrease the influence of time warps for late-game stages without influencing other racial matchups.
IM_Squirtle: If time warp utilization decreases then this means that build orders that were strengthened by time warps will decrease in frequency.
Is this round of changes heading in the right direction?
EG_Xenocider: Perhaps. The patch could ultimately be useless. When widow mines were first popular pre-change, Zergs did not really know how to deal with them; with the knowledge they have now, things could be different.
BBoongBBoong: Honestly, this patch feels like there was no reason to release it. But then again, this is something that can only be told for sure after a lot of games have been played. I guess there's a difference in which stance each side is taking.
ROOT_Illusion: I guess a help to Terran is good. Too early to tell if the changes are going to help much because the games will play out a little different now that we have a different map pool.
RagnaroK:I feel that this patch is fine as long as the widow mine rollback doesn't occur.
ROOT.Iaguz: Yes and no. If you want Terrans to win a bit more, then yeah. I'd say these changes are okay, at least for TvZ. But a patch shouldn't just be about adjusting win rates. A patch is an opportunity to also try and change up how the game is played on some level, and I don't see this patch doing that.
Whilst this patch doesn't change much to TvZ, that is a matchup generally considered to be the most exciting non mirror matchup anyway, so it's not that big a deal that it won't change too much about it.
Empire_Happy: I actually believe that most of those changes won't change THAT much, as, in my opinion, Terran does not need any sort of buff, or a nerf either. Other races need a nerf: significant one for Protoss (colossi damage, storm damage, Mothership core overall, blink-stalker allin's), minor one for Zerg (so that queens won't be able to battle hellions just as fine as roaches). But since I have never seen Blizzard revert their once-applied changes (big ones, at least), I don't think it's ever gonna happen. If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts. So if you would just buff Terran a lot (or nerf other races), Terran domination will come, and people will complain, not realizing the main point.
Liquid_Snute: Yes, a little. I'm unsure about the thor change, but the others should not be game breaking and seem like minor improvements.
XMG_Socke: In my opinion, these changes are not heading in the right direction. The changes to widow mine have already banished almost any Protoss opening but blink/colossus. Buffing them even further does not make much sense to me. They are already very good at what they do. Also, watching and playing the game, as well as looking at various stats, I don't really see that Terran is having issues against Protoss right now. Can't comment on the non-Protoss matchups.
SuperNova: Honestly, the biggest issue with Terran right now revolves around the balances regarding TvP, so I am disappointed about this patch since it seems like it is catering to fix TvZ balances. It is really difficult and challenging for Terran to win against Protoss in the late-game stages. Personally, I feel that we need some kind of unit that can tank damage even in the late-game stages. I feel that Blizzard needs more groundbreaking changes. Also, I think an oracle and warp prism rollback in speed is a necessary change.
mYi_Balloon: I feel that they understand where all the big issues lie but I feel that they keep patching to the point of no return.
IM_Squirtle: I'm not sure... Honestly, I'm not really in favor of this patch.
Did Happy just say that the very top terran players are better than the very top protoss and zergs?
This view that terrans are better than Zergs/Protoss players is just so disgusting.. that top zerg and protoss players somewhat rely on their race while for terrans its pure damn skill. Despicable.
I think most of the Terrans hit the nail on the head. This patch ultimately could result in doing nothing at the higher levels and it doesn't address any of the real issues. Sad to not see some kind of potential ghost/BC buff, but I don't think we'll ever see those units get buffed T_T
This is most likely just gonna result in the Marine,Marauder,Medivac,WM parade push you saw so much of during the latter stages of 2013, focusing on keeping the zergs attention on their 3rd while keeping them from a 4th with the parade push continuing until terrans get their 3/3 at the ~18 min mark. Meanwhile zerg is still on 2/2 which usually spelled DEATH for them the game. Didn't actually see many zergs win in games like that usually with it being baneling busts with speedlings/roaches which seemed to fetch quite a few wins.
"If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts."
Yeah, Happy, the best terrans are so good that a balanced state would have them win all the time. Good to know. This is a frequent enough view but I didn't expect someone as good as him to have it.
Why not just re-buff the siege tank and make the battlecruiser viable and interesting? It would be nice to have unit composition options and a tier 3 for terrans.
The big picture though... LotV is already under development:
Can we help spread the word and create pressure to get Rob Pardo to replace Browder as head of Sc2? Pardo led the team for broodwar, frozen throne, and wow/BC. We need to make this a thing before LotV development starts. Think about it.
On July 19 2014 09:36 Nebuchad wrote: "If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts."
Yeah, Happy, the best terrans are so good that a balanced state would have them win all the time. Good to know. This is a frequent enough view but I didn't expect someone as good as him to have it.
It's almost impossible to prove that what he says is true, but it's generally a shared views among terrans. I personally think that top top tiers terrans are overall better than their couunterparts zergs and protoss. But meh, there is no real evidence so it's probably a general bias.
On July 19 2014 09:36 Nebuchad wrote: "If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts."
Yeah, Happy, the best terrans are so good that a balanced state would have them win all the time. Good to know. This is a frequent enough view but I didn't expect someone as good as him to have it.
It's almost impossible to prove that what he says is true, but it's generally a shared views among terrans. I personally think that top top tiers terrans are overall better than their couunterparts zergs and protoss. But meh, there is no real evidence so it's probably a general bias.
Yeah it's no wonder to me that someone like you would think that. Happy is more surprising. It sort of makes his achievements even more impressive, because it's such a bad mindset to have, I wonder how he can just keep his cool despite losing against people that he doesn't have much respect for.
You say it's almost impossible to prove that it's true: on the other hand it's very easy to prove that it isn't. Terrans don't perform better when the weakest race than the others did. It took Mvp going to foreignland to beat broodlord infestor in 2012. And the logical fallacy of using TaeJa's wins as evidence that terrans are better, when terrans have introduced themselves the idea that these wins don't mean much because he's playing against fields that are wildly inferior to him most of the time, is kind of astonishing.
I generally agree with the Terrans that this will mostly help Terrans in the mid-game, the part they are already strongest at, rather than in the more important late-game (and early game versus Protoss), and I agree with the Protoss that this will probably not so much affect TvP winrates but rather favour awful Colossus-based play to the detriment of awesome Templar based play.
And reading Happy's delusions reminds me of why I so enjoy watching Terrans suffer these days.
On July 19 2014 09:36 Nebuchad wrote: "If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts."
Yeah, Happy, the best terrans are so good that a balanced state would have them win all the time. Good to know. This is a frequent enough view but I didn't expect someone as good as him to have it.
It's almost impossible to prove that what he says is true, but it's generally a shared views among terrans. I personally think that top top tiers terrans are overall better than their couunterparts zergs and protoss. But meh, there is no real evidence so it's probably a general bias.
The thing is that terrans go for the same build every game (and thus nails them to perfection), and then balancing around that will in the end obviously require mechanical skills from the terran and strategical skills from the protoss.
On July 19 2014 09:36 Nebuchad wrote: "If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts."
Yeah, Happy, the best terrans are so good that a balanced state would have them win all the time. Good to know. This is a frequent enough view but I didn't expect someone as good as him to have it.
It's almost impossible to prove that what he says is true, but it's generally a shared views among terrans. I personally think that top top tiers terrans are overall better than their couunterparts zergs and protoss. But meh, there is no real evidence so it's probably a general bias.
On July 19 2014 09:36 Nebuchad wrote: "If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts."
Yeah, Happy, the best terrans are so good that a balanced state would have them win all the time. Good to know. This is a frequent enough view but I didn't expect someone as good as him to have it.
It's almost impossible to prove that what he says is true, but it's generally a shared views among terrans. I personally think that top top tiers terrans are overall better than their couunterparts zergs and protoss. But meh, there is no real evidence so it's probably a general bias.
Yeah it's no wonder to me that someone like you would think that. Happy is more surprising. It sorts of makes his achievements even more impressive, because it's such a bad mindset to have, I wonder how he can just keep his cool despite losing against people that he doesn't have much respect for.
You say it's almost impossible to prove that it's true: on the other hand it's very easy to prove that it isn't. Terrans don't perform better when the weakest race than the others did. It took Mvp going to foreignland to beat broodlord infestor in 2012. And the logical fallacy of using TaeJa's wins as evidence that terrans are better, when terrans have introduced themselves the idea that these wins don't mean much because he's playing against fields that are wildly inferior to him most of the time, is kind of astonishing.
When you take more time to look, you might realise that, for exemple, terran is the least represented race for years in top league, even at the top foreigner level. Even before the WMs patch, there were few foreigners terrans and we were still the least represented race in GM. But top koreans terrans kept winning everything. Hell, even at the sbig terran era, in 2011, there were really few top foreigners terrans compared to protoss and zergs. This is something that make us think that there might be a huge wall that only topkorean terrans have overcome.
I read a translattion of a korean talk show recently with Flash etc. TheMarine said that it's almost impossible to see the difference of level between top protoss for exemple. I can tell you that it's very much different between terrans players. You will always see the difference between players.
On July 19 2014 10:03 Faust852 wrote:When you take more time to look, you might realise that, for exemple, terran is the least represented race for years in top league, even at the top foreigner level. Even before the WMs patch, there were few foreigners terrans and we were still the least represented race in GM. But top koreans terrans kept winning everything. Hell, even at the sbig terran era, in 2011, there were really few top foreigners terrans compared to protoss and zergs. This is something that make us think that there might be a huge wall that only topkorean terrans have overcome.
That's an attempt at distraction. You're supposed to be demonstrating a difference of skill between topkorean Terrans and topkorean Zergs or Protosses, not a difference between topkorean Terrans and foreigner Terrans.
On July 19 2014 10:06 Jerubaal wrote: At this point, I just want them to make terran OP so they will stop bitching.
They won't. I was there during 1/1/1. They were bitching that Terrans were going to be nerfed because all the best players coincidentally chose to play Terran, making the race look overpowered while they were actually the weakest.
I think Supernova's points were quite valid. He was pretty much saying "uhh thanks I guess, but our main issue was TvP, mainly in the later part of the game". I was pretty vexed that this patch doesn't really do anything for late game TvP, which has been a problem since day 1.
On July 19 2014 10:03 Faust852 wrote:When you take more time to look, you might realise that, for exemple, terran is the least represented race for years in top league, even at the top foreigner level. Even before the WMs patch, there were few foreigners terrans and we were still the least represented race in GM. But top koreans terrans kept winning everything. Hell, even at the sbig terran era, in 2011, there were really few top foreigners terrans compared to protoss and zergs. This is something that make us think that there might be a huge wall that only topkorean terrans have overcome.
That's an attempt at distraction. You're supposed to be demonstrating a difference of skill between topkorean Terrans and topkorean Zergs or Protosses, not a difference between topkorean Terrans and foreigner Terrans.
As I said, there is no way to prove my point. I said it's probably a general bias from the terran population. The only argument I can give is TheMarine's argument.
On July 19 2014 10:06 Jerubaal wrote: At this point, I just want them to make terran OP so they will stop bitching.
They won't. I was there during 1/1/1. They were bitching that Terrans were going to be nerfed because all the best players coincidentally chose to play Terran, making the race look overpowered while they were actually the weakest.
It's exactly the same now with protoss bitching instead of terrans.
On July 19 2014 10:06 Jerubaal wrote: At this point, I just want them to make terran OP so they will stop bitching.
They won't. I was there during 1/1/1. They were bitching that Terrans were going to be nerfed because all the best players coincidentally chose to play Terran, making the race look overpowered while they were actually the weakest.
It's exactly the same now with protoss bitching instead of terrans.
There are Protoss bitching that Terran is overpowered?
On July 19 2014 10:06 Jerubaal wrote: At this point, I just want them to make terran OP so they will stop bitching.
They won't. I was there during 1/1/1. They were bitching that Terrans were going to be nerfed because all the best players coincidentally chose to play Terran, making the race look overpowered while they were actually the weakest.
It's exactly the same now with protoss bitching instead of terrans.
There are Protoss bitching that Terran is overpowered?
That's a very clever comment, ha ha
This is very sensible by Squirtle. Noone finds the colossus exciting and these recent patches just forces protoss to never build anything else.
On July 19 2014 10:03 Faust852 wrote:When you take more time to look, you might realise that, for exemple, terran is the least represented race for years in top league, even at the top foreigner level. Even before the WMs patch, there were few foreigners terrans and we were still the least represented race in GM. But top koreans terrans kept winning everything. Hell, even at the sbig terran era, in 2011, there were really few top foreigners terrans compared to protoss and zergs. This is something that make us think that there might be a huge wall that only topkorean terrans have overcome.
That's an attempt at distraction. You're supposed to be demonstrating a difference of skill between topkorean Terrans and topkorean Zergs or Protosses, not a difference between topkorean Terrans and foreigner Terrans.
As I said, there is no way to prove my point. I said it's probably a general bias from the terran population. The only argument I can give is TheMarine's argument.
And as I said, it's very easy to disprove his point, because terrans don't do better than the other races when underpowered. Look at the leap in logic that is happening there. When someone tells you that TaeJa winning tournaments proves that terran isn't that underpowered, you're going to answer to him that he isn't playing against the very best opposition, so the fact that he wins doesn't mean much when it comes to balance. It even skews the winrates, as you have argued before, because it makes the terran winrates look better than they would look if he was playing people of his own level all the time.
But now suddenly Happy wants to use Taeja's wins as balance points, saying that because he can beat these people, that proves terrans are superior players, and that doesn't shock you a single bit?
On July 19 2014 10:06 Jerubaal wrote: At this point, I just want them to make terran OP so they will stop bitching.
They won't. I was there during 1/1/1. They were bitching that Terrans were going to be nerfed because all the best players coincidentally chose to play Terran, making the race look overpowered while they were actually the weakest.
It's exactly the same now with protoss bitching instead of terrans.
What protoss apart from Rain who plays a style which doesnt really give him an advantage which other toss players have which makes it op has complained?
Timewarp limited to 10 seconds is good if the spell could also be used to increase the shield regeneration for units who come in contact with that spell. Shield battery of sorts, also giving the Protoss players options to cast on own damaged units in non-combat situations.
On July 19 2014 09:27 MtlGuitarist97 wrote: I think most of the Terrans hit the nail on the head. This patch ultimately could result in doing nothing at the higher levels and it doesn't address any of the real issues. Sad to not see some kind of potential ghost/BC buff, but I don't think we'll ever see those units get buffed T_T
Yes, exactly this. I want Terran Tier 3 tech to actually have the ABILITY to trade somewhat evenly. BCs are especially shit in TvP and generally useless.
Instead of buffing/nerfing WM and Hellbats over and over why not do something to help the actual problem? Blizzard is forcing Terrans to become one dimensional. If the tier 3 units have the ABILITY to be microed properly to trade evenly, I believe pro Terrans will use them as transitions instead of rally snowballing tier 2 composition over and over.
And reading Happy's delusions reminds me of why I so enjoy watching swarm host vs colossus every game these days.
Ha! No, you are assuredly right about that.
Honestly, Terran has the most interesting matchups to watch (which makes me wonder why people actually want to see mech happen, but that's a different matter), and that's probably because they revolve around a highly dynamic unit like the Marine, instead of the excruciatingly boring Roaches or the dreadfully awful Colossi and Swarm Hosts.
The duration of a stimpak is 15 seconds. If time warp doesn't last as long as that, what's the point? I thought it was supposed to make it easier for gateway units to fight terran without kiting. I was OK with the nerf to 15 seconds, but 10 seconds seems too short. I am a zerg player.
I agree that templar openings will be nerfed by this changed. But then again, templar opening is already dead in the current patch so that doesn't really impact too much.
On July 19 2014 10:38 BaronVonOwn wrote: The duration of a stimpak is 15 seconds. If time warp doesn't last as long as that, what's the point? I thought it was supposed to make it easier for gateway units to fight terran without kiting. I was OK with the nerf to 15 seconds, but 10 seconds seems too short. I am a zerg player.
TW isn't used for that at all lol. You take less than 10s to get out of a TW anyway. Stim has nothing to do with it.
On July 19 2014 09:43 CutTheEnemy wrote: Why not just re-buff the siege tank and make the battlecruiser viable and interesting? It would be nice to have unit composition options and a tier 3 for terrans.
The big picture though... LotV is already under development:
Can we help spread the word and create pressure to get Rob Pardo to replace Browder as head of Sc2? Pardo led the team for broodwar, frozen throne, and wow/BC. We need to make this a thing before LotV development starts. Think about it.
On July 19 2014 09:26 Varroth wrote: Did Happy just say that the very top terran players are better than the very top protoss and zergs?
This view that terrans are better than Zergs/Protoss players is just so disgusting.. that top zerg and protoss players somewhat rely on their race while for terrans its pure damn skill. Despicable.
Honestly, Happy's opinion doesn't surprise me at all. For one, Happy has always shown on ladder (if you've ever played against him) that he doesn't respect most people he is playing against. He doesn't really communicate with anyone. Secondly, this is a shared view for many many terrans. It's not news that many terrans believe they're playing the "skill race", and that zerg and protoss are the so-called "A-move races". It's just so commonly heard within this community.
In any case, I'm just gonna repeat what many players said. I think Blizzard is looking at the wrong units. Even now widow mines are superior to tanks for their cost + supply vs zerg, and is THE unit that completely stops protosses from doing anything else other than Colossi + stalker compositions. I don't understand why the Widow Mine is the unit their looking at, when there are a few other units we basicly never see in competitive play and are obviously inferior in terran compositions than the standard marines, marauders, medivacs etc etc...
One last thing I'd like to note, is that Blizzard should start considering "taking out" or "giving" units/abilities. A lot of times, changing values here and there (resource cost/energy cost etc.etc...) does very little to help a matchup, and doesn't change the cores issues the game is suffering from.
mYi_StarDust: I'm not sure. I know that Terrans need a buff, but I'm worried that this may make them too strong. I won't know for sure until I play first. What I know for sure is that it will be even more difficult to utilize zealot plays and this will force out even more colossi-related openings. Actually, since the widow mine is useless once the Protoss has secured a certain composition, this will only buff the early and mid game for Terran, and do nothing for late game.
God I hope this doesn't happen. Very few things makes me want to turn away from the stream more than colossus play.
On July 19 2014 08:46 Genome852 wrote: Great that Koreans were included. There are fewer one-line cringe worthy answers this time too. Nice.
Well, this time the changes actually matter to them. Last patch IIRC was just some hasty response to Stephano's SH ZvZs which they really didn't care about.
People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
So, why was it played before then ? AFAIK, the buff vs shield really affected prrotoss at a later stage of the game, where they already have charge. The drop play before the WM nerf is as effective now.
I personally think that colossus build are just too strong since protoss figured out how to deal with scv pull. And so they do that everytime because it's better. It's like having the choice between a gift of 100$ and a gift of 150$. Both are cool, but it owuld be stupid to take the 100$ gift.
Btw, I am currently playing protoss for learning this race, I am a topM terran and I started at diamond (with freelosing) protoss. I have a really good ratio (30-3) and already play masters players. But I can't really try anything against T since I don't play any ^^
On July 19 2014 11:29 Universum wrote: You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
Well that's not true, putting a cannon in your minerals shuts down widow mines a lot harder than an observer does. It's pretty much a given that terran is going to drop at some point, I've always found a few cannons to be worth the investment.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
So, why was it played before then ? AFAIK, the buff vs shield really affected prrotoss at a later stage of the game, where they already have charge. The drop play before the WM nerf is as effective now.
I personally think that colossus build are just too strong since protoss figured out how to deal with scv pull. And so they do that everytime because it's better. It's like having the choice between a gift of 100$ and a gift of 150$. Both are cool, but it owuld be stupid to take the 100$ gift.
Btw, I am currently playing protoss for learning this race, I am a topM terran and I started at diamond (with freelosing) protoss. I have a really good ratio (30-3) and already play masters players. But I can't really try anything against T since I don't play any ^^
It's pretty impossible to play templar vs. bio/mine, regardless of how well you split and control. The terran just kites forever and you bleed units non-stop. He doesn't even pull scvs, just dodges storms and watches zealots die constantly. Even if you split perfectly and only lose one zealot per mine and never suffer splash, it's still cost-effective for terran. Rain whined about it (it was whining, no doubt) because his style became literally impossible. I mean, yeah, he could just do what everyone else does and go colossus, but he wasn't wrong that templar openings are basically null and void. And that was before this new widow mine buff.
Before the buffs, mines didn't one shot every toss gateway unit and do a ton of splash damage to toss units, which is why it was used.
Gonna say I agree these patches are mostly stupid. I think nurfing time warp in this way is dumb. All it does is slow down the advantage after its been cast. They should leave it's time alone, make it slow by 30 percent instead of 50,and make it affect the casters units. This way it still has a defensive and offensive use but it's more forgiving and makes protoss have to think before using it.
Widow mine is just going to devour Terran units even more now. It really sucks that the only worthwhile splash Terran has is so random and unpredictable. I absolutely agree that it is going to make damaging probes way to easy. They kept talking about making the game more forgiving but having a unit that can decimate worker lines if you just blink is way too unforgiving.
I actually wouldn't have minded a medivac afterburner duration buff. When mutas are out Terran basically is throwing away units during drops that do no damage. At the end of the day it seem blizzard just wants the game to look exciting rather than actually play well. I don't think we will see a lot of major changes until lotv, which at this point is fine. I just hope they pay attention to what everyone is saying here. When all 3 races agree it's the late game that sucks for one race, and they should probably take a look at mech they really should look into that.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
While there might an argument on widow mines shutting down templar openings but have you looked at TvP point of view? Protoss as a race shutsdown Mech, Immortals shuts down mech so maybe they should nerf immortals then? I never liked widows mines but everyone saying how this one buff shuts down templar openings should see the T's point of view when it comes to P units hard countering T's units/composition specifically mech.
If the widow mines doesn't get reverted to its original stats Terran will continue to struggle in TvZ, period. Mutas are too good now, and combined with sh they make mech very hard to play as a viable everygame style. Plus sh games are often boring as hell.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
While there might an argument on widow mines shutting down templar openings but have you looked at TvP point of view? Protoss as a race shutsdown Mech, Immortals shuts down mech so maybe they should nerf immortals then? I never liked widows mines but everyone saying how this one buff shuts down templar openings should see the T's point of view when it comes to P units hard countering T's units/composition specifically mech.
Exactly, Protoss has no room to complain about an opening of theirs getting shut down when Terran is pigeonholed into the same openings and style every single game.
i just want to mention, if the time warp is drastically nerfed, i would think the energy requirement should be adjusted. 50 energy takes 90 seconds to gain. not saying it should be 50 energy, but 100 takes 3 minutes...
On July 19 2014 13:26 fenix404 wrote: i just want to mention, if the time warp is drastically nerfed, i would think the energy requirement should be adjusted. 50 energy takes 90 seconds to gain. not saying it should be 50 energy, but 100 takes 3 minutes...
Reducing the energy totally makes the nerf pointless. In fact, it would actually be better because engagements are usually decided before 10 seconds, especially when the tw is used during an all-in vs Terran. It would be far better for Toss if they could continue to cast new tw's as soon as the Terran stepped out of the last one.
On July 19 2014 13:26 fenix404 wrote: i just want to mention, if the time warp is drastically nerfed, i would think the energy requirement should be adjusted. 50 energy takes 90 seconds to gain. not saying it should be 50 energy, but 100 takes 3 minutes...
Reducing the energy totally makes the nerf pointless. In fact, it would actually be better because engagements are usually decided before 10 seconds, especially when the tw is used during an all-in vs Terran. It would be far better for Toss if they could continue to cast new tw's as soon as the Terran stepped out of the last one.
Or better yet, just remove timewarp from the mothership core
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
Has anyone found any "best" formations for bio-mine-tank? I've been working with enemy -> marine||mines||tank setup, it seems okay unless they run past the marines and pull WM shots into your units.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
While there might an argument on widow mines shutting down templar openings but have you looked at TvP point of view? Protoss as a race shutsdown Mech, Immortals shuts down mech so maybe they should nerf immortals then? I never liked widows mines but everyone saying how this one buff shuts down templar openings should see the T's point of view when it comes to P units hard countering T's units/composition specifically mech.
Exactly, Protoss has no room to complain about an opening of theirs getting shut down when Terran is pigeonholed into the same openings and style every single game.
My feel is that tech/mech is either for counters or attacks of opportunity. Tanks in tank mode do better damage against immortals, as far as I know. They lose much less DPS , and it makes sense in certain stages of a game. Tanks do seem difficult to use vs a protoss army, and bio does seem to be "win". But the paradigm seems to be that you use high tech and high cost mechanical units (bc, thor, tank, viking, etc) as an initial assault force or for some very specific counter work, and then revert back to spamming bio once the biggest threats to bio are dead. Bio beats zealot-stalker, and the occaisional archon or high templar for a protoss on the back foot.
Tanks actually have a relatively short build time, which I found a bit surprising. If you wipe a P's army, you know that zealot-stalker spam is going to be the follow up, and MMM-tank should be the natural move by a T against that.
Nice to see some actual progamers opinions not like the first time (Nerchio etc..). I think, as supernova said, that this change is nice but doesn't adress to the stages terrans are struggling at : Late game and defending the X possible protoss all-ins.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
Sorry but the game does not revolve around you. If you dont want to adapt, its your own fault. Whats wrong with including a robo in your build? Immortal, templar, zealot compositions are very strong against bio, plus you get detection and are able to snipe mines with immortals.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well.
You can't afford to use emp on high templar unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 emps to drain a templar's energy, and you need the emps for the rest of the protoss army. During the mid-game against a good protoss executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 emps on the chargelot/templar with a bio/ghost style you just die. Further, if you don't have any bio left over because they all got killed by the templar, you just die. The storms zone the ghosts out and destroy bio very well.
I just had a game where I massed tanks vs stalker spam with immortals thrown in to see what would happen.
Is it my imagination, or do tanks prioritize shooting immortals over shooting anything within range? I'll have to check the replay, but it seems like they were going after immortals the entire time unless i tried to micro their shots.
Can anyone else confirm if tanks give immortals high priority? If so, that'd be the reason they are terrible vs P..
On July 19 2014 14:42 Socup wrote: I just had a game where I massed tanks vs stalker spam with immortals thrown in to see what would happen.
Is it my imagination, or do tanks prioritize shooting immortals over shooting anything within range? I'll have to check the replay, but it seems like they were going after immortals the entire time unless i tried to micro their shots.
Can anyone else confirm if tanks give immortals high priority? If so, that'd be the reason they are terrible vs P..
Possibly, but did you check to see if the toss player was microing the stalkers to avoid being targeted?
For instance, tanks will priorities units that are on an attack command over units that are on a regular move command. For example, I a-move SCVs onto a tank line and right click move a bunch of marauders. The tanks will ignore the marauders and go after the SCV's until the marauders issue an attack command.
On July 19 2014 14:42 Socup wrote: I just had a game where I massed tanks vs stalker spam with immortals thrown in to see what would happen.
Is it my imagination, or do tanks prioritize shooting immortals over shooting anything within range? I'll have to check the replay, but it seems like they were going after immortals the entire time unless i tried to micro their shots.
Can anyone else confirm if tanks give immortals high priority? If so, that'd be the reason they are terrible vs P..
Possibly, but did you check to see if the toss player was microing the stalkers to avoid being targeted?
For instance, tanks will priorities units that are on an attack command over units that are on a regular move command. For example, I a-move SCVs onto a tank line and right click move a bunch of marauders. The tanks will ignore the marauders and go after the SCV's until the marauders issue an attack command.
I think it would be nice if your could set custom attack priorities on all of the units, much like how you set up a keyboard config.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
Sorry but the game does not revolve around you. If you dont want to adapt, its your own fault. Whats wrong with including a robo in your build? Immortal, templar, zealot compositions are very strong against bio, plus you get detection and are able to snipe mines with immortals.
There's nothing wrong with opening robo into templar. It's how Protoss played Templar openings throughout all of WoL and the first half of HotS. The only time we really started to see roboless templar play was when blink was so strong. HOWEVER, even with a robo, it's difficult just because the execution of poking out with stalkers to kill mines without getting your observer killed is very very difficult. On top of that, you really can't afford more than 4-6 stalkers in a templar opening because the templar cost sooooooooo much gas.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well.
You can't afford to use emp on high templar unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 emps to drain a templar's energy, and you need the emps for the rest of the protoss army. During the mid-game against a good protoss executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 emps on the chargelot/templar with a bio/ghost style you just die. Further, if you don't have any bio left over because they all got killed by the templar, you just die. The storms zone the ghosts out and destroy bio very well.
This is the most near-sighted and dumb thing I've read on TL. There is never a point in which you are so short on ghost mana (especially after the recent buff), and even then ghosts are still useful for DPS. A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death. Whitewing put it eloquently with the phrase "hemorrhaging units". The end solution is a lot like the old TvZs. You just keep trading gas units and taking inefficient trades until you can't afford it anymore and the Terran dam breaks over and kills you.
The situation that you describe is nothing like templar vs biomine, and it's simply moronic to take that comparison seriously.
ALL THAT SAID, we really need to stop quoting Rain for saying "templar openings are dead", "Mine OP can't play templar anymore", etc., etc. He said something along those lines, but we don't need to take it as far as saying "Rain gave authority that playing templar openings is impossible, so it's absolutely true". And second, that may have just been Rain's view on the situation (who has generally preferred the more classic blink/colossus opening), and it doesn't necessarily give full authority to the statement that NO PROTOSS CAN OPEN TEMPLAR BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE IMBA IMBA.
I think robo -> templar is still viable, but the execution of it is much much harder than it was before. If this patch goes through, I don't think it will really affect the dynamic of this composition war all that much; it will still be difficult as hell to do, but it will probably still be viable with excellent control and the right circumstances.
Haven't we proven that colossus builds don't die to SCV pulls by now? Can we not put labels on things as "impossible" just because they're not necessarily popular? (And no, this does not include mech TvP or "The Avilo Build", which are simply nonsensical strategies).
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
Sorry but the game does not revolve around you. If you dont want to adapt, its your own fault. Whats wrong with including a robo in your build? Immortal, templar, zealot compositions are very strong against bio, plus you get detection and are able to snipe mines with immortals.
There's nothing wrong with opening robo into templar. It's how Protoss played Templar openings throughout all of WoL and the first half of HotS. The only time we really started to see roboless templar play was when blink was so strong. HOWEVER, even with a robo, it's difficult just because the execution of poking out with stalkers to kill mines without getting your observer killed is very very difficult. On top of that, you really can't afford more than 4-6 stalkers in a templar opening because the templar cost sooooooooo much gas.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well.
You can't afford to use emp on high templar unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 emps to drain a templar's energy, and you need the emps for the rest of the protoss army. During the mid-game against a good protoss executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 emps on the chargelot/templar with a bio/ghost style you just die. Further, if you don't have any bio left over because they all got killed by the templar, you just die. The storms zone the ghosts out and destroy bio very well.
This is the most near-sighted and dumb thing I've read on TL. There is never a point in which you are so short on ghost mana (especially after the recent buff), and even then ghosts are still useful for DPS. A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death. Whitewing put it eloquently with the phrase "hemorrhaging units". The end solution is a lot like the old TvZs. You just keep trading gas units and taking inefficient trades until you can't afford it anymore and the Terran dam breaks over and kills you.
The situation that you describe is nothing like templar vs biomine, and it's simply moronic to take that comparison seriously.
ALL THAT SAID, we really need to stop quoting Rain for saying "templar openings are dead", "Mine OP can't play templar anymore", etc., etc. He said something along those lines, but we don't need to take it as far as saying "Rain gave authority that playing templar openings is impossible, so it's absolutely true". And second, that may have just been Rain's view on the situation (who has generally preferred the more classic blink/colossus opening), and it doesn't necessarily give full authority to the statement that NO PROTOSS CAN OPEN TEMPLAR BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE IMBA IMBA.
I think robo -> templar is still viable, but the execution of it is much much harder than it was before. If this patch goes through, I don't think it will really affect the dynamic of this composition war all that much; it will still be difficult as hell to do, but it will probably still be viable with excellent control and the right circumstances.
Haven't we proven that colossus builds don't die to SCV pulls by now? Can we not put labels on things as "impossible" just because they're not necessarily popular? (And no, this does not include mech TvP or "The Avilo Build", which are simply nonsensical strategies).
I'm disgusted that you just wrote off mech TvP as a nonsensical strategy. That kind of attitude is contrary to the direction that is favorable...
On July 19 2014 08:46 Genome852 wrote: Great that Koreans were included. There are fewer one-line cringe worthy answers this time too. Nice.
Well, this time the changes actually matter to them. Last patch IIRC was just some hasty response to Stephano's SH ZvZs which they really didn't care about.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
Sorry but the game does not revolve around you. If you dont want to adapt, its your own fault. Whats wrong with including a robo in your build? Immortal, templar, zealot compositions are very strong against bio, plus you get detection and are able to snipe mines with immortals.
There's nothing wrong with opening robo into templar. It's how Protoss played Templar openings throughout all of WoL and the first half of HotS. The only time we really started to see roboless templar play was when blink was so strong. HOWEVER, even with a robo, it's difficult just because the execution of poking out with stalkers to kill mines without getting your observer killed is very very difficult. On top of that, you really can't afford more than 4-6 stalkers in a templar opening because the templar cost sooooooooo much gas.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well.
You can't afford to use emp on high templar unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 emps to drain a templar's energy, and you need the emps for the rest of the protoss army. During the mid-game against a good protoss executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 emps on the chargelot/templar with a bio/ghost style you just die. Further, if you don't have any bio left over because they all got killed by the templar, you just die. The storms zone the ghosts out and destroy bio very well.
This is the most near-sighted and dumb thing I've read on TL. There is never a point in which you are so short on ghost mana (especially after the recent buff), and even then ghosts are still useful for DPS. A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death. Whitewing put it eloquently with the phrase "hemorrhaging units". The end solution is a lot like the old TvZs. You just keep trading gas units and taking inefficient trades until you can't afford it anymore and the Terran dam breaks over and kills you.
The situation that you describe is nothing like templar vs biomine, and it's simply moronic to take that comparison seriously.
ALL THAT SAID, we really need to stop quoting Rain for saying "templar openings are dead", "Mine OP can't play templar anymore", etc., etc. He said something along those lines, but we don't need to take it as far as saying "Rain gave authority that playing templar openings is impossible, so it's absolutely true". And second, that may have just been Rain's view on the situation (who has generally preferred the more classic blink/colossus opening), and it doesn't necessarily give full authority to the statement that NO PROTOSS CAN OPEN TEMPLAR BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE IMBA IMBA.
I think robo -> templar is still viable, but the execution of it is much much harder than it was before. If this patch goes through, I don't think it will really affect the dynamic of this composition war all that much; it will still be difficult as hell to do, but it will probably still be viable with excellent control and the right circumstances.
Haven't we proven that colossus builds don't die to SCV pulls by now? Can we not put labels on things as "impossible" just because they're not necessarily popular? (And no, this does not include mech TvP or "The Avilo Build", which are simply nonsensical strategies).
"A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. " - SC2John
you can tell Happy's not a legit pro when he seriously thinks Terran players are just somehow superior in skill compared to Zerg or Protoss players. Has he even put in the same amount of time and research as Korean Zergs and Protoss players when he makes this statement? Absolutely not, it's just his own lack of effort that somehow led to a defeatist mentality. Even among foreign Terrans, he's on a lower tier these days so his assessment of the situation is really not all that credible.
Aside from Happy's unintelligent and unwarranted remark, it's sad that Blizzard faces a deadlock at this point. To address the issues Terran's having (variety of solid openings in TvP, late-game composition in bio TvZ or TvP), fairly significant changes need to be made, such as buffing BCs or offering an upgrade for tier 1-2 units. But because DK is so stubborn as to not give out any such meaningful changes that can help change the stale metagame, the way the game plays out will ever be the same with tweaks in advantages. For example, early stim timings might be able to kill a few more probes or get a sentry through minor number tweaks in TvP (like this time warp nerf), but the styles offered in the game are going to be ever the same. And because Protoss lategame composition with Tempests are going to be superior to whatever Terran bio compositions can offer, the fundamental issue of Terran difficulty in lategame TvP never goes away. Perhaps that lategame stage will be reached later due to these aforementioned tweaks, but that's it.
What makes me sick when I listen to statements about T too weak in TvP late game is that, they never address or admit T being too strong in TvP MID GAME. I do not mind T buff in late game, but at same time I want to see T mid game nerf. Right now in TvP I feel that the Terran player who SCV-pull and do mid game all-in, is better rewarded more than the T player whos willing to play TvP late game which I think is quite sad.
On July 19 2014 16:19 CriMsoN sc2 wrote: What makes me sick when I listen to statements about T too weak in TvP late game is that, they never address or admit T being too strong in TvP MID GAME. I do not mind T buff in late game, but at same time I want to see T mid game nerf. Right now in TvP I feel that the Terran player who SCV-pull and do mid game all-in, is better rewarded more than the T player whos willing to play TvP late game which I think is quite sad.
Er.... Wut?
Maybe defend properly, SCV pulls haven't been problematic or even dangerous in months, lategame has never been dangerous which is why Terrans go almost all in in the midgame.
I think you got too used to freewinning vs Terran, if you claim midgame is near OP.
Too elaborate, Terran buils have been tailored to the midgame for years. It's the tiny 2 minute timing Terran puts all their focus towards because it's the only little timing they have the potential to take control of the game. If Terran had a lategame, this sort of midgame "all-in" strategy wouldn't need to exist. This makes lategame Terran strategies a lot stronger, but tgose strategies come at the cost of a weaker, less aggressove but more transitional midgame.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
Sorry but the game does not revolve around you. If you dont want to adapt, its your own fault. Whats wrong with including a robo in your build? Immortal, templar, zealot compositions are very strong against bio, plus you get detection and are able to snipe mines with immortals.
There's nothing wrong with opening robo into templar. It's how Protoss played Templar openings throughout all of WoL and the first half of HotS. The only time we really started to see roboless templar play was when blink was so strong. HOWEVER, even with a robo, it's difficult just because the execution of poking out with stalkers to kill mines without getting your observer killed is very very difficult. On top of that, you really can't afford more than 4-6 stalkers in a templar opening because the templar cost sooooooooo much gas.
On July 19 2014 14:07 Loccstana wrote:
On July 19 2014 14:02 Whitewing wrote:
On July 19 2014 13:55 Socup wrote:
On July 19 2014 11:29 Universum wrote:
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well.
You can't afford to use emp on high templar unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 emps to drain a templar's energy, and you need the emps for the rest of the protoss army. During the mid-game against a good protoss executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 emps on the chargelot/templar with a bio/ghost style you just die. Further, if you don't have any bio left over because they all got killed by the templar, you just die. The storms zone the ghosts out and destroy bio very well.
This is the most near-sighted and dumb thing I've read on TL. There is never a point in which you are so short on ghost mana (especially after the recent buff), and even then ghosts are still useful for DPS. A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death. Whitewing put it eloquently with the phrase "hemorrhaging units". The end solution is a lot like the old TvZs. You just keep trading gas units and taking inefficient trades until you can't afford it anymore and the Terran dam breaks over and kills you.
The situation that you describe is nothing like templar vs biomine, and it's simply moronic to take that comparison seriously.
ALL THAT SAID, we really need to stop quoting Rain for saying "templar openings are dead", "Mine OP can't play templar anymore", etc., etc. He said something along those lines, but we don't need to take it as far as saying "Rain gave authority that playing templar openings is impossible, so it's absolutely true". And second, that may have just been Rain's view on the situation (who has generally preferred the more classic blink/colossus opening), and it doesn't necessarily give full authority to the statement that NO PROTOSS CAN OPEN TEMPLAR BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE IMBA IMBA.
I think robo -> templar is still viable, but the execution of it is much much harder than it was before. If this patch goes through, I don't think it will really affect the dynamic of this composition war all that much; it will still be difficult as hell to do, but it will probably still be viable with excellent control and the right circumstances.
Haven't we proven that colossus builds don't die to SCV pulls by now? Can we not put labels on things as "impossible" just because they're not necessarily popular? (And no, this does not include mech TvP or "The Avilo Build", which are simply nonsensical strategies).
"A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. " - SC2John
By the time a Terran has 6 medivacs archons are not enough to kill the bio army, not to mention that they also get destroyed by mines. They aren't completely useless per se if you can recylce them and morph them, but they will still die to mines along all the zealots, and even if they dont the bio can still beat zealot/archon easily once enough medivacs are on the field.
So yes, this patch puts the final nail in the coffin for templar openings, which makes PvT games considerably more boring, especially because mines will remain useless against colossi. If they wanted to get rid of some PvT builds (which is fine) they should have in some way targeted colossi builds, not templar.
On July 19 2014 15:59 emidanRKO wrote: I'm disgusted that you just wrote off mech TvP as a nonsensical strategy. That kind of attitude is contrary to the direction that is favorable...
As long as the immortal and tempest exist mech will always be shit. The fact that one random whiny low GM na terran does it to get more viewers doesnt mean anything.
On July 19 2014 16:40 pieroog wrote: "Well it's a Protoss nerf so, by default, I think it's good!" - what a childish comment.
as childish as "Well it's a Protoss nerf so, by default, I think it's bad!"
On July 19 2014 16:19 CriMsoN sc2 wrote: What makes me sick when I listen to statements about T too weak in TvP late game is that, they never address or admit T being too strong in TvP MID GAME. I do not mind T buff in late game, but at same time I want to see T mid game nerf. Right now in TvP I feel that the Terran player who SCV-pull and do mid game all-in, is better rewarded more than the T player whos willing to play TvP late game which I think is quite sad.
What makes me sick when I listen to statements about P too weak in TvP mid game is that, they never address or admit P being too strong in TvP EARLY GAME. I do not mind P buff in mid game, but at same time I want to see P early game nerf. Right now in TvP I feel that the Protoss player who do early game all-in, is better rewarded more than the P player whos willing to play TvP mid game which I think is quite sad.
Slight little addition to Teoita, As long as Blizzard pidgeonholes Terran into having only 4 viable units, mech will not be viable. Nerfs like making hardened shiels reduce 50% of damage, making Tempest more expensive (especially on supply) and buffing the 10 useless Terran units might easilly give mech the power it deserves.
Happy has the best micro of all foreigners. There is no one better to study than Happy if you want to improve your army control. He is also a very hard working pro, always at the top of the EU ladder since forever. It is really sad how little he has won given the amazing skills he has. I can understand why he is frustrated at the game.
Stop bashing Happy guys, his sentense had A LOT of sense.. Don't just take the "part" where he says - Terran are the "skill" race, but take the whole answer as a whole, which HAD A VERY GOOD POINT:
1 - The game should be patched about GAMEPLAY, not balancing the WINRATES, and IN THAT CONTEXT he says the: 2 - EVEN IF top Terrans WERE a lot better than the top P/Z Blizz would accomplish nothing if they were focused on adjusting the win-rates instead of the gameplay.. So yes - he had a POINT, which I think most of us agree upon
I mean - he DOES sound kinda "douchy & disrespectful", BUT - his post HAD a very good point - balances aren't to fix winrates, they're to fix GAMEPLAY.. Which is "kinda" what we are/were all asking for
Honestly if this goes through - I kinda expect about 70% winrate for Terran in TvZ lol.. And in PvZ - Zerg will probably win more with Roach-Hydra-Corruptor attack on the 3rd (or maybe even Roach-Ling which is more likely to happen even before)
GJ TL Staff - awesome work, and not only that, but you're getting better and better set of interviewees too, thanks for the the info
On July 19 2014 17:25 SC2Toastie wrote: Slight little addition to Teoita, As long as Blizzard pidgeonholes Terran into having only 4 viable units, mech will not be viable. Nerfs like making hardened shiels reduce 50% of damage, making Tempest more expensive (especially on supply) and buffing the 10 useless Terran units might easilly give mech the power it deserves.
But bandaiding is easier and thus cheaper.
Honestly i feel like if they just buffed the tank it would be fine. Maybe bio would be less viable in TvT, but it would remain a great matchup regardless so i can live with that if people really, really want mech. For PvT they would probably have to include some kind of +shield bonus (maybe taking it away from the mine).
Tempests are kinda hard to touch cuz other matchups, so i dont know about that. We will see in LotV beta i suppose.
On July 19 2014 17:25 SC2Toastie wrote: Slight little addition to Teoita, As long as Blizzard pidgeonholes Terran into having only 4 viable units, mech will not be viable. Nerfs like making hardened shiels reduce 50% of damage, making Tempest more expensive (especially on supply) and buffing the 10 useless Terran units might easilly give mech the power it deserves.
But bandaiding is easier and thus cheaper.
Honestly i feel like if they just buffed the tank it would be fine. Maybe bio would be less viable in TvT, but it would remain a great matchup regardless so i can live with that if people really, really want mech. For PvT they would probably have to include some kind of +shield bonus (maybe taking it away from the mine).
Tempests are kinda hard to touch cuz other matchups, so i dont know about that. We will see in LotV beta i suppose.
Tempest's range needs to be reduced or the bonus to massive air removed. They are the reason why broodlords and battle cruisers are no longer viable. Protoss already got voidrays as a anti capital ship unit.
On July 19 2014 17:25 SC2Toastie wrote: Slight little addition to Teoita, As long as Blizzard pidgeonholes Terran into having only 4 viable units, mech will not be viable. Nerfs like making hardened shiels reduce 50% of damage, making Tempest more expensive (especially on supply) and buffing the 10 useless Terran units might easilly give mech the power it deserves.
But bandaiding is easier and thus cheaper.
Honestly i feel like if they just buffed the tank it would be fine. Maybe bio would be less viable in TvT, but it would remain a great matchup regardless so i can live with that if people really, really want mech. For PvT they would probably have to include some kind of +shield bonus (maybe taking it away from the mine).
Tempests are kinda hard to touch cuz other matchups, so i dont know about that. We will see in LotV beta i suppose.
Problem with mech in Terran isn't that Tanks are weak, but the fact that the units that should guard them fail at their "job".. Raven, WMine, Viking, and even the Thor - all fail to "guard" the Tank overall.. The only unit that's relatively good at guarding the Tanks intact are the Hellbat, but those can work vs only certain type of units that aren't Tank's main threat/problem..
Tanks aren't bad at their damaging output, and maybe on the contrary - they're quite good, but what use if the opponent can simply pick them off with either Air or Immortals ?
I think the balance is much more near us than we would ever agree on.
Changin toss or zerg would probably be a mistake at this point. I think slight terran buffs are the right call, but maybe not in the way they tend to do them.
I personally think small tank buff, and maybe small BC buff or Thor buff would be all it would take to make things better for terran.
On July 19 2014 17:25 SC2Toastie wrote: Slight little addition to Teoita, As long as Blizzard pidgeonholes Terran into having only 4 viable units, mech will not be viable. Nerfs like making hardened shiels reduce 50% of damage, making Tempest more expensive (especially on supply) and buffing the 10 useless Terran units might easilly give mech the power it deserves.
But bandaiding is easier and thus cheaper.
Honestly i feel like if they just buffed the tank it would be fine. Maybe bio would be less viable in TvT, but it would remain a great matchup regardless so i can live with that if people really, really want mech. For PvT they would probably have to include some kind of +shield bonus (maybe taking it away from the mine).
Tempests are kinda hard to touch cuz other matchups, so i dont know about that. We will see in LotV beta i suppose.
Problem with mech in Terran isn't that Tanks are weak, but the fact that the units that should guard them fail at their "job".. Raven, WMine, Viking, and even the Thor - all fail to "guard" the Tank overall.. Tanks aren't bad at their damaging output, and maybe on the contrary - they're quite good, but what use if the opponent can simply pick them off with either Air or Immortals ?
I feel like the problem with Mech is that tanks are just weak (talking tvz and tvp here), so you need to tech to other stuff to compensate (ghosts, vikings, ravens, etc). BW tanks were the core of the army supported by vultures and science vessels; sc2 tanks are just kind of there so you dont die while you mass ravens more or less.
On July 19 2014 17:25 SC2Toastie wrote: Slight little addition to Teoita, As long as Blizzard pidgeonholes Terran into having only 4 viable units, mech will not be viable. Nerfs like making hardened shiels reduce 50% of damage, making Tempest more expensive (especially on supply) and buffing the 10 useless Terran units might easilly give mech the power it deserves.
But bandaiding is easier and thus cheaper.
Honestly i feel like if they just buffed the tank it would be fine. Maybe bio would be less viable in TvT, but it would remain a great matchup regardless so i can live with that if people really, really want mech. For PvT they would probably have to include some kind of +shield bonus (maybe taking it away from the mine).
Tempests are kinda hard to touch cuz other matchups, so i dont know about that. We will see in LotV beta i suppose.
Tempest's range needs to be reduced or the bonus to massive air removed. They are the reason why broodlords and battle cruisers are no longer viable. Protoss already got voidrays as a anti capital ship unit.
Broodlords in PvZ are still viable as a unit to close out a game, they just aren't the go-to unit that more or less defines when a Zerg can win. Honestly i'm kind of ok with that.
On July 19 2014 17:37 Svizcy wrote: I think the balance is much more near us than we would ever agree on.
Changin toss or zerg would probably be a mistake at this point. I think slight terran buffs are the right call, but maybe not in the way they tend to do them.
I personally think small tank buff, and maybe small BC buff or Thor buff would be all it would take to make things better for terran.
The game is "balanced", but not very exciting to watch since everyone goes for the same builds. We need major overhauls to gameplay mechanics and especially Terran mech units. We need changes like Dota 2 patch 6.79
On July 19 2014 17:37 Svizcy wrote: I think the balance is much more near us than we would ever agree on.
Changin toss or zerg would probably be a mistake at this point. I think slight terran buffs are the right call, but maybe not in the way they tend to do them.
I personally think small tank buff, and maybe small BC buff or Thor buff would be all it would take to make things better for terran.
The game is "balanced", but not very exciting to watch since everyone goes for the same builds. We need major overhauls to gameplay mechanics and especially Terran mech units. We need changes like Dota 2 patch 6.79
A moba and an RTS are very different beasts though; you can't just change stats because fuck yes and hope an RTS remains balanced.
In a moba the ban/pick system helps in smooth out imbalances (see all the Lycan insta-bans this weekend)
On July 19 2014 17:37 Svizcy wrote: I think the balance is much more near us than we would ever agree on.
Changin toss or zerg would probably be a mistake at this point. I think slight terran buffs are the right call, but maybe not in the way they tend to do them.
I personally think small tank buff, and maybe small BC buff or Thor buff would be all it would take to make things better for terran.
I still can't "wrap" my head around that Tempest bonus vs Air Massive, lol.. I mean if that gets nerfed - we might see BOTH - BC and Broodlord.. (I hope), but I agree - 14 range for Tanks instead of 13 shouldn't be game-breaking much in either ZvT or TvT, but would maybe open some "build" that might put Protoss passive play relying on the MSC for defense on the clock overall
On July 19 2014 17:35 Loccstana wrote: Tempest's range needs to be reduced or the bonus to massive air removed. They are the reason why broodlords and battle cruisers are no longer viable. Protoss already got voidrays as a anti capital ship unit.
Void rays can't really function in that capacity due to their low range and low speed. Also a handful of thors can wipe infinity void rays off the field in seconds, with 5 thors it takes literally three seconds and they're all gone, they won't even get in range to shoot anything.
As a protoss who goes chargelot/storm in PvT, it's really bad right now. It's a fun composition, and colossus isn't that much. From spectators' view, Blizzard should punish colossi not chargelot/storm. Congrats on making the game even less fun, Blizzard.
Stop bashing Happy guys, his sentense had A LOT of sense.. Don't just take the "part" where he says - Terran are the "skill" race, but take the whole answer as a whole, which HAD A VERY GOOD POINT:
1 - The game should be patched about GAMEPLAY, not balancing the WINRATES, and IN THAT CONTEXT he says the: 2 - EVEN IF top Terrans WERE a lot better than the top P/Z Blizz would accomplish nothing if they were focused on adjusting the win-rates instead of the gameplay.. So yes - he had a POINT, which I think most of us agree upon
I mean - he DOES sound kinda "douchy & disrespectful", BUT - his post HAD a very good point - balances aren't to fix winrates, they're to fix GAMEPLAY.. Which is "kinda" what we are/were all asking for
Honestly if this goes through - I kinda expect about 70% winrate for Terran in TvZ lol.. And in PvZ - Zerg will probably win more with Roach-Hydra-Corruptor attack on the 3rd (or maybe even Roach-Ling which is more likely to happen even before)
GJ TL Staff - awesome work, and not only that, but you're getting better and better set of interviewees too, thanks for the the info
1. You don't get bonus points for using a lot of caps lock. 2. No? He's very clear about what point he's trying to make, I don't see why it's unfair to question him on that. If he wanted us not to do it, he could have, you know, not made that point.
On July 19 2014 17:37 Svizcy wrote: I think the balance is much more near us than we would ever agree on.
Changin toss or zerg would probably be a mistake at this point. I think slight terran buffs are the right call, but maybe not in the way they tend to do them.
I personally think small tank buff, and maybe small BC buff or Thor buff would be all it would take to make things better for terran.
The game is "balanced", but not very exciting to watch since everyone goes for the same builds. We need major overhauls to gameplay mechanics and especially Terran mech units. We need changes like Dota 2 patch 6.79
A moba and an RTS are very different beasts though; you can't just change stats because fuck yes and hope an RTS remains balanced.
In a moba the ban/pick system helps in smooth out imbalances (see all the Lycan insta-bans this weekend)
What Blizzard should do is add more units into the game, for example the campaign units. Balance is ultimately determined by how creatively players use their units and the more units in the game, the better. Dota 2 would be much harder to balance if there are only 20 heros to choose from.
Also, Blizzard needs to redo the damage system. The x damage, +y to attribute is severely flawed.
On July 19 2014 17:37 Svizcy wrote: I think the balance is much more near us than we would ever agree on.
Changin toss or zerg would probably be a mistake at this point. I think slight terran buffs are the right call, but maybe not in the way they tend to do them.
I personally think small tank buff, and maybe small BC buff or Thor buff would be all it would take to make things better for terran.
The game is "balanced", but not very exciting to watch since everyone goes for the same builds. We need major overhauls to gameplay mechanics and especially Terran mech units. We need changes like Dota 2 patch 6.79
A moba and an RTS are very different beasts though; you can't just change stats because fuck yes and hope an RTS remains balanced.
In a moba the ban/pick system helps in smooth out imbalances (see all the Lycan insta-bans this weekend)
What Blizzard should do is add more units into the game, for example the campaign units. Balance is ultimately determined by how creatively players use their units and the more units in the game, the better. Dota 2 would be much harder to balance if there are only 20 heros to choose from.
Also, Blizzard needs to redo the damage system. The x damage, +y to attribute is severely flawed.
Why? BW had classes small/medium/large units but that was hard to comprehend. Size is kind of relative. How is SC2's system bad?
On July 19 2014 10:03 Faust852 wrote:When you take more time to look, you might realise that, for exemple, terran is the least represented race for years in top league, even at the top foreigner level. Even before the WMs patch, there were few foreigners terrans and we were still the least represented race in GM. But top koreans terrans kept winning everything. Hell, even at the sbig terran era, in 2011, there were really few top foreigners terrans compared to protoss and zergs. This is something that make us think that there might be a huge wall that only topkorean terrans have overcome.
That's an attempt at distraction. You're supposed to be demonstrating a difference of skill between topkorean Terrans and topkorean Zergs or Protosses, not a difference between topkorean Terrans and foreigner Terrans.
As I said, there is no way to prove my point. I said it's probably a general bias from the terran population. The only argument I can give is TheMarine's argument.
And as I said, it's very easy to disprove his point, because terrans don't do better than the other races when underpowered. Look at the leap in logic that is happening there. When someone tells you that TaeJa winning tournaments proves that terran isn't that underpowered, you're going to answer to him that he isn't playing against the very best opposition, so the fact that he wins doesn't mean much when it comes to balance. It even skews the winrates, as you have argued before, because it makes the terran winrates look better than they would look if he was playing people of his own level all the time.
But now suddenly Happy wants to use Taeja's wins as balance points, saying that because he can beat these people, that proves terrans are superior players, and that doesn't shock you a single bit?
On July 19 2014 17:37 Svizcy wrote: I think the balance is much more near us than we would ever agree on.
Changin toss or zerg would probably be a mistake at this point. I think slight terran buffs are the right call, but maybe not in the way they tend to do them.
I personally think small tank buff, and maybe small BC buff or Thor buff would be all it would take to make things better for terran.
The game is "balanced", but not very exciting to watch since everyone goes for the same builds. We need major overhauls to gameplay mechanics and especially Terran mech units. We need changes like Dota 2 patch 6.79
A moba and an RTS are very different beasts though; you can't just change stats because fuck yes and hope an RTS remains balanced.
In a moba the ban/pick system helps in smooth out imbalances (see all the Lycan insta-bans this weekend)
What Blizzard should do is add more units into the game, for example the campaign units. Balance is ultimately determined by how creatively players use their units and the more units in the game, the better. Dota 2 would be much harder to balance if there are only 20 heros to choose from.
Also, Blizzard needs to redo the damage system. The x damage, +y to attribute is severely flawed.
Why? BW had classes small/medium/large units but that was hard to comprehend. Size is kind of relative. How is SC2's system bad?
The problem with the current system is that the more attributes a unit has, the more vunerable the unit is against taking bonus damage from some other unit. This leads to a hard counter system where units with certain attributes take massive damage from units with certain bonus damage attributes. And as all know hard counters are terrible from a gameplay perspective.
Stop bashing Happy guys, his sentense had A LOT of sense.. Don't just take the "part" where he says - Terran are the "skill" race, but take the whole answer as a whole, which HAD A VERY GOOD POINT:
1 - The game should be patched about GAMEPLAY, not balancing the WINRATES, and IN THAT CONTEXT he says the: 2 - EVEN IF top Terrans WERE a lot better than the top P/Z Blizz would accomplish nothing if they were focused on adjusting the win-rates instead of the gameplay.. So yes - he had a POINT, which I think most of us agree upon
I mean - he DOES sound kinda "douchy & disrespectful", BUT - his post HAD a very good point - balances aren't to fix winrates, they're to fix GAMEPLAY.. Which is "kinda" what we are/were all asking for
Honestly if this goes through - I kinda expect about 70% winrate for Terran in TvZ lol.. And in PvZ - Zerg will probably win more with Roach-Hydra-Corruptor attack on the 3rd (or maybe even Roach-Ling which is more likely to happen even before)
GJ TL Staff - awesome work, and not only that, but you're getting better and better set of interviewees too, thanks for the the info
1. You don't get bonus points for using a lot of caps lock. 2. No? He's very clear about what point he's trying to make, I don't see why it's unfair to question him on that. If he wanted us not to do it, he could have, you know, not made that point.
Don't drag me down m8, I don't belong in that "bully" league of yours.. I'd like to think/believe that he certainly didn't address his thought on us, but he had a different goal (which b.t.w. IS EASILY READABLE if you try to overcome your "first thought" and "search" for things that make more sense a bit more)
I honestly tried to understand happy the best I could, and read his "thought" instead of his "words" that came out.. After all he may or may not be good at English, but it certainly isn't his natural..
So yah - if you really want to debate on that - "dude Happy, what a douche, can't believe he said that, lol" topic - you certainly can do it, pls don't drag me with you down..
I tried to be more positive, and even better - my "con" (more like my only con) were those caps (which happened so that it somehow "hurt" your feelings, but it also is a very easy way to "outline" the crop from the rest in a post)..
But yes - in the very end - won't apologize to you, nor change my method of post - cause grammar or spelling or whatever "irregularities judges" aren't worth thinking over upon
On July 19 2014 10:44 plogamer wrote: I agree that templar openings will be nerfed by this changed. But then again, templar opening is already dead in the current patch so that doesn't really impact too much.
So you are saying... The last patch already killed templar openings so it's good that they are even worse now?
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with Squirtle's point on fun, the question is: what else CAN they buff to help out Terran late game vs Protoss?
Ghost buff won't help vs Collosus, Viking buff is overpowered vs Zerg, and buffing any of the Mech or other Air units doesn't do anything due to Protoss hard counters in the mid and early game and also has major balance ramifications in the other two match ups.
Seriously, I get this argument that Protoss want to be able to open Zealot/Templar but I have yet to see a single decent suggestion as to how to buff Terran late game that makes even a tiny bit of sense.
ROOT.iaguz wrote But a patch shouldn't just be about adjusting win rates. A patch is an opportunity to also try and change up how the game is played on some level, and I don't see this patch doing that.
Can we please not do this? The korean scene would never give feedback like this for a reason, it's only foreigners that think so.
On July 19 2014 18:36 Vindicare605 wrote: I don't think anyone is disagreeing with Squirtle's point on fun, the question is: what else CAN they buff to help out Terran late game vs Protoss?
Ghost buff won't help vs Collosus, Viking buff is overpowered vs Zerg, and buffing any of the Mech or other Air units doesn't do anything due to Protoss hard counters in the mid and early game and also has major balance ramifications in the other two match ups.
Seriously, I get this argument that Protoss want to be able to open Zealot/Templar but I have yet to see a single decent suggestion as to how to buff Terran late game that makes even a tiny bit of sense.
There's always things that can "come out handy" lol.. The thing is - it's a patch and not an expo, so "effectiveness" is required overall.. By "effectiveness" I mean - achieving the desired effect (or at least in a minimum decent amount) with the LEAST EFFORT POSSIBLE.. So - there are semi/"radical" things that aren't that radical but might work, lol:
1 - try nerf Tempest bonus, and give it partially to shields instead (so it would have it's PvP remained role) 2 - try give Vikings vs shield bonus, or even better - a buff that when they start shooting it's target they get increased range so they'd not have to expose much while chase on colossus (a temporary bonus, but they lose it if switching the target though) 3 - try tweaking swarmhost - halve it's damage with a x2 multiplier, so more armored units will tank longer 4 - try givng the WM a 7 activation range but a 1.5 (or 1.25 or sth) sec delay activation, that delay would "serve" as a "target-this-unit" button, but also a "panic" opportunity for the opponent to split or to retreat as much as possible or so (basically what I'm trying to say is that Mines would work their role if they just forced the opponent to retreat instead of primarily being on destroying their clumps almost in an instant TBH).. Like - that's another Terran "flaw" IMO - they don't have a warn-first-shoot-later unit but instead all they have is the other way round, so limitations had/have to be forced 5 - speaking of which - we don't even know why WMs don't have a hold-fire button 6 - try giving Thor a debuff vs light air units that will give negative armor to it's target - which would cause others to shoot their target faster down (it's not like they shoot too fast so this would be too much to handle or so)
Like - they aren't that "closed" on options, but maybe need be a bit more radical (which isn't that they're not "in the mood to do" if they're already doing something drastic like TW from 30 down to 10 sec, lol)
Speaking of drastic - I'd like to see a change of HSM to something less firepower, more synergetic and more useful, and then nerf PDD though
These changes probably won't do much, but it's nice that after 2 years of Terran getting shit on there is finally a consensus that a buff might be an interesting idea. How progressive.
The big problem that I see is that late game the terran doesn't have the same quality of static defence. Terran have to leave actual units behind while P/Z can rely mainly on cannons/spines/spores.
If you made Widow Mines 1 supply Terran could afford to leave more behind their lines to deal with runbys, drops, etc. without weakening their main army. Because this would only matter at 200/200 this would specifically help the late game without buffing terran early/mid game.
Interesting thoughts, with the usual race bias sometimes though. Hopefully Blizzard reads it and knows how to take what's really meaningful out of it. I expect some changes to the patch anyway, no way the mine regains its full power with the previous buffs and the +shields damage.
So many opportunities for balance changes that may also change gameplay for the good... A Raw Tank Damage Buff. B Give Bio a lategame (FC) upgrade that increases armor against AOE Attacks (Banelings, Collosi, Archon, Siege Tanks) (gives room for other buffs and allows Bio to be more effective in the lategame mass AOE battles and not end Bio in TvT) C Overcharge becoming a channeled spell D Tank range to 14 E Tanks move 'n shoot F Thor redesign G Buff Fungal, IT or especially Neural H Make BC Viable (this makes lategame SkyMech and Carriers better probably) I Tempest less of a hardcounter J Reduce Mine movement speed, supply cost, damage, cost and increase burrow time - make them defensive instead of offensive. K Zerg needs a buff verse Toss lategame to allow for a Host nerf, and a buff to PDD. Change the Hydra projectile to instant damage: lower overkill and negates PDD. Possibly add +2 vs Mechanical damage. L Snipe Buff M Give Sentries lategame utility (Guardian Shield functions like a Shield Battery out of combat?) N Put more Emphasis on the lategame usage of Oracles and undo the speed buff. O Warp Prism can warp in a maximum of 6 to 10 units at a time P Make Charge a passive speed buff to encourage the micro. Q find a way to make Corruptors more tactical: make Corruption reduce attack speed, move speed, armor bij 20%. R Mine priority back to 20 S Lategame utility for Banshees. T Reaper upgrade to receive the anti light, slightly higher HP and anti structure attack, making them a dangerous yet expensive harrassment unit. U Remove the damn biotag on Hellbats V Hellion buff :D! W Allow X number of phoenix to lift massive units (5?) X Create an upgrade to DT at Shrine (expensive) to upgrade Sneak/Stealth mode: 6 sec invisibility, 1 sec activation time, 12 sec no attacking. Y I'd love to see Stalkers get some buff in the form of +2 damage at +3 attack instead of +1 to scale them better Z fix fucking swarmhosts
Obviously this is not implementable etcetera, just trying to show there is sooooo so much potential in this game, but instead we keep making only half the total arsenal of units useful and have the rest be forgotten and ignored. I'd say you want to have 75% of all units viable in each matchup.....
Our focus as a community should not be on percentages and stuff - we need to make this game more diverse and fun!
On July 19 2014 19:53 Willzzz wrote: The big problem that I see is that late game the terran doesn't have the same quality of static defence. Terran have to leave actual units behind while P/Z can rely mainly on cannons/spines/spores.
If you made Widow Mines 1 supply Terran could afford to leave more behind their lines to deal with runbys, drops, etc. without weakening their main army. Because this would only matter at 200/200 this would specifically help the late game without buffing terran early/mid game.
I think Terran's main lategame problem is that they can't transition into their ideal army as quickly as the other races. In PvT ideally they'd want like 20 ghosts and 15 vikings along the rest of their bio, while sacrificing most of their scv's. That takes about 40 minutes to accomplish, as opposed to roughly 20 for Protoss. And in TvZ bio, i don't even know what exactly they are supposed to get to stop 60 banelings and a bunch of ultras...
edit: @sc2toastie, why the hell woudl you want to buff fungal? we know how that one ends, and it's not pretty; plus, it's still strong enough in PvZ without being broken.
On July 19 2014 19:53 Willzzz wrote: The big problem that I see is that late game the terran doesn't have the same quality of static defence. Terran have to leave actual units behind while P/Z can rely mainly on cannons/spines/spores.
If you made Widow Mines 1 supply Terran could afford to leave more behind their lines to deal with runbys, drops, etc. without weakening their main army. Because this would only matter at 200/200 this would specifically help the late game without buffing terran early/mid game.
I think Terran's main lategame problem is that they can't transition into their ideal army as quickly as the other races. In PvT ideally they'd want like 20 ghosts and 15 vikings along the rest of their bio, while sacrificing most of their scv's. That takes about 40 minutes to accomplish, as opposed to roughly 20 for Protoss. And in TvZ bio, i don't even know what exactly they are supposed to get to stop 60 banelings and a bunch of ultras...
edit: @sc2toastie, why the hell woudl you want to buff fungal? we know how that one ends, and it's not pretty; plus, it's still strong enough in PvZ without being broken.
Infestors are IMO somewhat underwhelming and underused and not as useful as you'd like them to be. I would like Fungal to be more targetable, not talking about dps/root changes.
That being said, I was just filling the alphabet, not thinking the changes fully through, obviously. While some of it may be useful, it's mostly more LOTV material if material at all. I just want to open discussion on the course we're sailing (pidgeonholing and raw mechanics/bo/some luck instead of diversity and creativity)
Terran can take the time to get to their ideal army, but the trouble is that P/Z then end up with a huge bank that they can put to good use. It's getting to that second ideal army after the big battle when most terrans fall apart.
Being able to hold some mines in reserve might allow Terran to get a remax and continue the game.
On July 19 2014 19:53 Willzzz wrote: The big problem that I see is that late game the terran doesn't have the same quality of static defence. Terran have to leave actual units behind while P/Z can rely mainly on cannons/spines/spores.
If you made Widow Mines 1 supply Terran could afford to leave more behind their lines to deal with runbys, drops, etc. without weakening their main army. Because this would only matter at 200/200 this would specifically help the late game without buffing terran early/mid game.
I think Terran's main lategame problem is that they can't transition into their ideal army as quickly as the other races. In PvT ideally they'd want like 20 ghosts and 15 vikings along the rest of their bio, while sacrificing most of their scv's. That takes about 40 minutes to accomplish, as opposed to roughly 20 for Protoss. And in TvZ bio, i don't even know what exactly they are supposed to get to stop 60 banelings and a bunch of ultras...
edit: @sc2toastie, why the hell woudl you want to buff fungal? we know how that one ends, and it's not pretty; plus, it's still strong enough in PvZ without being broken.
OR - you know - Terran not having a single mechanic that can buy time but not kill the opponent while doing it, so..
On July 19 2014 20:26 SC2Toastie wrote: So many opportunities for balance changes that may also change gameplay for the good... A Raw Tank Damage Buff. B Give Bio a lategame (FC) upgrade that increases armor against AOE Attacks (Banelings, Collosi, Archon, Siege Tanks) (gives room for other buffs and allows Bio to be more effective in the lategame mass AOE battles and not end Bio in TvT) C Overcharge becoming a channeled spell D Tank range to 14 E Tanks move 'n shoot F Thor redesign G Buff Fungal, IT or especially Neural H Make BC Viable (this makes lategame SkyMech and Carriers better probably) I Tempest less of a hardcounter J Reduce Mine movement speed, supply cost, damage, cost and increase burrow time - make them defensive instead of offensive. K Zerg needs a buff verse Toss lategame to allow for a Host nerf, and a buff to PDD. Change the Hydra projectile to instant damage: lower overkill and negates PDD. Possibly add +2 vs Mechanical damage. L Snipe Buff M Give Sentries lategame utility (Guardian Shield functions like a Shield Battery out of combat?) N Put more Emphasis on the lategame usage of Oracles and undo the speed buff. O Warp Prism can warp in a maximum of 6 to 10 units at a time P Make Charge a passive speed buff to encourage the micro. Q find a way to make Corruptors more tactical: make Corruption reduce attack speed, move speed, armor bij 20%. R Mine priority back to 20 S Lategame utility for Banshees. T Reaper upgrade to receive the anti light, slightly higher HP and anti structure attack, making them a dangerous yet expensive harrassment unit. U Remove the damn biotag on Hellbats V Hellion buff :D! W Allow X number of phoenix to lift massive units (5?) X Create an upgrade to DT at Shrine (expensive) to upgrade Sneak/Stealth mode: 6 sec invisibility, 1 sec activation time, 12 sec no attacking. Y I'd love to see Stalkers get some buff in the form of +2 damage at +3 attack instead of +1 to scale them better Z fix fucking swarmhosts
Obviously this is not implementable etcetera, just trying to show there is sooooo so much potential in this game, but instead we keep making only half the total arsenal of units useful and have the rest be forgotten and ignored. I'd say you want to have 75% of all units viable in each matchup.....
Our focus as a community should not be on percentages and stuff - we need to make this game more diverse and fun!
This very nice to read thrue, but with so many changes you are bount to create imbalanced game. Changing things slowly 1 by 1 is the appropriate approach i belive.
Eventhou i would love to see something like warhound and other new units implemented into the arsenal, so i could play mech when i play terran again (i switched to toss cause i was to fed up with bio play), changing a lot of things and just throw countless new options to ppl, would not create a healthy enviroment for a skill based RTS game like sc2 is, where eventhou casual players dont like this, balance is much more important than diversity, because of all tournaments going on and E-sports future, is the RTS balance vise really really really demanding genre. (as i am sure you would agree).
GUYS, is there anyone that could help me regarding the Map Editor.. ??, like not just "help", but someone being good at it too (required is designing custom units, not just making maps though)..
Have quite a few crazy stuff in my mind (funny is that I just can't get them out of my head, lol) that I'd like to try over.. o.f.c. - It might take some time - it's like a couple of months work rather than few days or weeks or so (but would probably not be a crazy amount of per-day work, like an hour to a couple of hours by-daily (every 2nd day, would like to go at it a bit slower, daily would be a too much of intensity overall))..
Hopefully - about several days of teaching/advices might work over.. Like - P.M. me if interested in "making a deal" over that, or even better - work together by "dicking around" with potential unit designs or so (and yes - being serious about this one, despite my "coarse description" of the effort - as long as it's not too much of a request of payment IMO)
(P.M. me if interested - hopefully haven't been THAT unwantful or hostile to "draw back" anyone that's good enough, And hopefully I get to make a single thing that may or may not be useful that I might've done on this forum overall )
Unless something DRASTIC changes, and I really mean massive changes (new unit/ability, drop-pods, etc.), TvP lategame will not "change in the right direction" any time soon. Blizzard was blunt and honest when they said they wanted a "certain" matchup to be imba (be advantageous or more areas of strength in different stages of the game) at different points in the game, i.e., Terran stronger in the mid-game and weaker in the lategame.
Take MMMVG vs. Storm/colossi/archon/tempest. The fact of the matter that the most tanky unit from the Terran has a pathetic 125HP (marauder/viking), which either melts to 1 shot from the back collossi, or lose up to 2/3 of their HP against a single storm. Money EMPs are always nice, but at a MAXIMUM that removes 1/2 of the protoss army's HP, after which +4 armor chargelots still tear away the marauders left standing even without colossi support.
There is a limit to how well you can split to minimize storm or colossi damage, after that it's all a numbers game. Blizzard needs to overhaul this match-up somehow, either by making the Terran units survive longer (collision radius, buffing HPs, etc.) or protoss AOE less effective, compensated by appropriate adjustments in the other direction as well (i.e., less DPS from Terran, and better gateway units from Protoss, etc.).
Until then, it's all about the gimmicky stuff where a Terran SCV pulls, obs snipes, drops his/her heart out, prays for money EMPS on clumped templars, etc. in order to hope to get a win. Just go back and watch some top-level TvPs; when the Terran wins, when is it EVER due to a good engagement (when both sides micro appropriately and are even economically)? 90% of time the protoss dies due to mines killing entire worker lines during fights, doom drops / nexuses snipes, or other stupid (and completely avoidable) shit like having only their only 2 obs and subsequently all their templars sniped?
TL;DR: Blizzard doesn't agree with what you want. Their answer to a weak Terran lategame in TvP will continually be to buff T's midgame strengths, so you can hope to end the game before it gets too late.
Some things I want to see: 1) An upgrade that allows Terrans to upgrade Bunkers, giving them turrets on top like in the campaign (but a lot stronger).
2) An overall reduction in production costs for the Siege Tank to 150 minerals, 100 gas, 2 supply, and 40 seconds (maybe even 35-38 seconds). And perhaps an upgrade that gives them 20 damage to Shields (or 20 bonus damage to all units).
3) The return of the Goliath, but I won't hold my breath for that one.
4) A more dynamic creep spread. It should spread and recede much faster than it currently does (the creep on the ground, not the tumor spawn cooldown), though this will kill some early builds, so perhaps making the creep tumors weaker (so that sniping them is a little easier, and early game battles will be for sniping tumors). Maybe make Hellions a little faster (and I mean only a little) so there will be closer micro battles between Hellions and Lings off creep so that a good Terran can continuously try to slow down the creep spread (this will make the early and mid game more important than just turtling up until you're ready to hit your timing). Or maybe make speed Zerglings slower off creep. You might have to add a new Protoss air or ground unit that is very mobile to deal with the new creep spread (since otherwise it will easily get out of hand in PvZ).
5) Potential removal of Warp Gate tech. Honestly, it's just too much mobility. There are times I think it's good, but there are also times I think it's beyond broken (funnily enough, sometimes I think it's good BECAUSE it's broken and would otherwise do very little). Maybe remove Warp Gate and double the size capacity of Warp Prisms? I don't know.
6) Probably a ton of counterbuffs to Zerg. I don't know. At the moment, Protoss is way too supply efficient and has too much mobility with Warp Gate and Zealot/DT harass (versus Terran). To give Terran legitimate lategame transitions, you'd have to give some buffs to Zerg, but then they become too strong against Protoss... I don't know. The game is just horrible. Too many bad design decisions were made along the way. You'd have to heavily remake the game.
(A) Some sort of Widow Mine buff might make sense in the TvZ context (maybe or maybe not the full buff suggested). (B) The WM buff (with shield bonus) will promote Turtle/Colossus/Deathball PvT at the expense of more active Templar PvT. (C) The WM buff won't help very much in TvP because it forces Robo styles (against which you don't want many mines). (D) Terran needs some different sort of specifically late game buff for TvP (and perhaps also for TvZ). (E) The Thor buff might be helpful in terms of lowering multitasking requirements, but good players micro them anyway. (F) It's difficult to generalize the pro feedback regarding time warp (some like, some hate, some want a different change).
I hope they release finally this patch before any other tournaments are broken, see Dreamhack, IEM as well, cause it sucks that unless your name is Teaja you cannot advance to final stages.
I wanted to watch Dreamhack but I wont cause I am tired of Ps and Zs.
On July 19 2014 23:03 RyLai wrote: Some things I want to see: 1) An upgrade that allows Terrans to upgrade Bunkers, giving them turrets on top like in the campaign (but a lot stronger).
2) An overall reduction in production costs for the Siege Tank to 150 minerals, 100 gas, 2 supply, and 40 seconds (maybe even 35-38 seconds). And perhaps an upgrade that gives them 20 damage to Shields (or 20 bonus damage to all units).
3) The return of the Goliath, but I won't hold my breath for that one.
4) A more dynamic creep spread. It should spread and recede much faster than it currently does (the creep on the ground, not the tumor spawn cooldown), though this will kill some early builds, so perhaps making the creep tumors weaker (so that sniping them is a little easier, and early game battles will be for sniping tumors). Maybe make Hellions a little faster (and I mean only a little) so there will be closer micro battles between Hellions and Lings off creep so that a good Terran can continuously try to slow down the creep spread (this will make the early and mid game more important than just turtling up until you're ready to hit your timing). Or maybe make speed Zerglings slower off creep. You might have to add a new Protoss air or ground unit that is very mobile to deal with the new creep spread (since otherwise it will easily get out of hand in PvZ).
5) Potential removal of Warp Gate tech. Honestly, it's just too much mobility. There are times I think it's good, but there are also times I think it's beyond broken (funnily enough, sometimes I think it's good BECAUSE it's broken and would otherwise do very little). Maybe remove Warp Gate and double the size capacity of Warp Prisms? I don't know.
6) Probably a ton of counterbuffs to Zerg. I don't know. At the moment, Protoss is way too supply efficient and has too much mobility with Warp Gate and Zealot/DT harass (versus Terran). To give Terran legitimate lategame transitions, you'd have to give some buffs to Zerg, but then they become too strong against Protoss... I don't know. The game is just horrible. Too many bad design decisions were made along the way. You'd have to heavily remake the game.
No offense to BW nostalgia, but that's the worst thing to ever think of possible.. If you don't believe me - try the SC2 BW mod with unlimited unit selection and multiple buildings, and see how would BW fare in the "modern world"
You basically stated the worst thing possible, if you wanna sit on your ass - fine, that thoroughly "describes" your gameplay attitude, but WG is far better designed than any 2 supply 100 gas tank ever would
On July 19 2014 23:41 TW wrote: I hope they release finally this patch before any other tournaments are broken, see Dreamhack, IEM as well, cause it sucks that unless your name is Teaja you cannot advance to final stages.
I wanted to watch Dreamhack but I wont cause I am tired of Ps and Zs.
But..Zergs and tosses are just better than terrans..
On July 19 2014 23:03 RyLai wrote: Some things I want to see: 1) An upgrade that allows Terrans to upgrade Bunkers, giving them turrets on top like in the campaign (but a lot stronger).
2) An overall reduction in production costs for the Siege Tank to 150 minerals, 100 gas, 2 supply, and 40 seconds (maybe even 35-38 seconds). And perhaps an upgrade that gives them 20 damage to Shields (or 20 bonus damage to all units).
3) The return of the Goliath, but I won't hold my breath for that one.
4) A more dynamic creep spread. It should spread and recede much faster than it currently does (the creep on the ground, not the tumor spawn cooldown), though this will kill some early builds, so perhaps making the creep tumors weaker (so that sniping them is a little easier, and early game battles will be for sniping tumors). Maybe make Hellions a little faster (and I mean only a little) so there will be closer micro battles between Hellions and Lings off creep so that a good Terran can continuously try to slow down the creep spread (this will make the early and mid game more important than just turtling up until you're ready to hit your timing). Or maybe make speed Zerglings slower off creep. You might have to add a new Protoss air or ground unit that is very mobile to deal with the new creep spread (since otherwise it will easily get out of hand in PvZ).
5) Potential removal of Warp Gate tech. Honestly, it's just too much mobility. There are times I think it's good, but there are also times I think it's beyond broken (funnily enough, sometimes I think it's good BECAUSE it's broken and would otherwise do very little). Maybe remove Warp Gate and double the size capacity of Warp Prisms? I don't know.
6) Probably a ton of counterbuffs to Zerg. I don't know. At the moment, Protoss is way too supply efficient and has too much mobility with Warp Gate and Zealot/DT harass (versus Terran). To give Terran legitimate lategame transitions, you'd have to give some buffs to Zerg, but then they become too strong against Protoss... I don't know. The game is just horrible. Too many bad design decisions were made along the way. You'd have to heavily remake the game.
No offense to BW nostalgia, but that's the worst thing to ever think of possible.. If you don't believe me - try the SC2 BW mod with unlimited unit selection and multiple buildings, and see how would BW fare in the "modern world"
You basically stated the worst thing possible, if you wanna sit on your !@#$%^&* - fine, that thoroughly "describes" your gameplay attitude, but WG is far better designed than any 2 supply 100 gas tank ever would
I agree his suggestions would make the game a lot more passive, which isn't good. Regarding Warpgate, I think there is a difference between overall design concept and the execution of the design.
I think the idea that Blizzard imagined is that you use warptech for mobile harass and to support your army while having Robotech as the core backbone. That's a pretty awesome concept as it would mean that warptech could only do light harass, but in order to really win a battle you would need enough Immortals/Collosus.
However, I think too many of the warpgate units are a bit too strong, which makes various timing attacks really frustrating ot play against. Further, Robo isn't accessible enough as a tech-pattern which means you only have 1 Robo for a big period of the game. I think tbh it would be better if players were "forced" to have more Robo Facitilieis and fewer warpgates.
I think protoss would have felt a ton better as a race if Blizzard had designed protoss in this way;
- Blink Stalkers core stats gets nerfed. Perhaps a slight compensation in a non "straight-up"-engagement way. - Zealots less DPS, more HP (in order to give it a clear role as the "tank" unit" in the compostion. Charge redesigned as well in order to make it more microintensive. - Sentry is kept in the game, but Forcefield removed and instead it has another strong spell which adds countermicro. - Robotics facility cost reduced to 150/50 - Immortal and Collosus becomes more microable/small redesign (various ways to do that) so players are satifised with getting more of them and fewer warptech units instead. - Regarding TvP lategame/ terran mech, I think that's a seperate issue which can be "fixed" by changing terran units
This way, warptech in itself could stay unchanged.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
Sorry but the game does not revolve around you. If you dont want to adapt, its your own fault. Whats wrong with including a robo in your build? Immortal, templar, zealot compositions are very strong against bio, plus you get detection and are able to snipe mines with immortals.
There's nothing wrong with opening robo into templar. It's how Protoss played Templar openings throughout all of WoL and the first half of HotS. The only time we really started to see roboless templar play was when blink was so strong. HOWEVER, even with a robo, it's difficult just because the execution of poking out with stalkers to kill mines without getting your observer killed is very very difficult. On top of that, you really can't afford more than 4-6 stalkers in a templar opening because the templar cost sooooooooo much gas.
On July 19 2014 14:07 Loccstana wrote:
On July 19 2014 14:02 Whitewing wrote:
On July 19 2014 13:55 Socup wrote:
On July 19 2014 11:29 Universum wrote:
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well.
You can't afford to use emp on high templar unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 emps to drain a templar's energy, and you need the emps for the rest of the protoss army. During the mid-game against a good protoss executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 emps on the chargelot/templar with a bio/ghost style you just die. Further, if you don't have any bio left over because they all got killed by the templar, you just die. The storms zone the ghosts out and destroy bio very well.
This is the most near-sighted and dumb thing I've read on TL. There is never a point in which you are so short on ghost mana (especially after the recent buff), and even then ghosts are still useful for DPS. A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death. Whitewing put it eloquently with the phrase "hemorrhaging units". The end solution is a lot like the old TvZs. You just keep trading gas units and taking inefficient trades until you can't afford it anymore and the Terran dam breaks over and kills you.
The situation that you describe is nothing like templar vs biomine, and it's simply moronic to take that comparison seriously.
ALL THAT SAID, we really need to stop quoting Rain for saying "templar openings are dead", "Mine OP can't play templar anymore", etc., etc. He said something along those lines, but we don't need to take it as far as saying "Rain gave authority that playing templar openings is impossible, so it's absolutely true". And second, that may have just been Rain's view on the situation (who has generally preferred the more classic blink/colossus opening), and it doesn't necessarily give full authority to the statement that NO PROTOSS CAN OPEN TEMPLAR BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE IMBA IMBA.
I think robo -> templar is still viable, but the execution of it is much much harder than it was before. If this patch goes through, I don't think it will really affect the dynamic of this composition war all that much; it will still be difficult as hell to do, but it will probably still be viable with excellent control and the right circumstances.
Haven't we proven that colossus builds don't die to SCV pulls by now? Can we not put labels on things as "impossible" just because they're not necessarily popular? (And no, this does not include mech TvP or "The Avilo Build", which are simply nonsensical strategies).
"A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. " - SC2John
The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death.
On July 19 2014 23:41 TW wrote: I hope they release finally this patch before any other tournaments are broken, see Dreamhack, IEM as well, cause it sucks that unless your name is Teaja you cannot advance to final stages.
I wanted to watch Dreamhack but I wont cause I am tired of Ps and Zs.
Dude, I guess you didn't check out Red battlegrounds Atlanta.
TvT finals and no Taeja wasn't even in the finals. /whine why no Z or P in finals gotta balance.
IEM had a pretty much even race distribution and in the quarter finals it was 3P 3Z and 2T, thats actually very balanced.
Dreamhack valencia had a lot less T going into it, the winrate of the terrans in the round of 16 pretty even. Had tons of more zergs look at the last group stage.
Dude, I guess you didn't check out Red battlegrounds Atlanta.
You are not serious about this argument right?
Dreamhack valencia had a lot less T going into it, the winrate of the terrans in the round of 16 pretty even. Had tons of more zergs look at the last group stage.
That's typically what happens when a race is underpowered. There are less players of the UP race who rate them selves "comeptitive" and thus fewer that opt to play in the tournament. Terran is a more played race in general than protoss, but it's easier to become "competitive" as protoss, which means more protoss players participate in tournaments.
When there is a strong selection-proces + the tournament doesn't invite all of the very best players in the world (but only some of the best players), then win/rates become useless. I say Dreamhack Valencia fits those criteria
On July 19 2014 23:03 RyLai wrote: Some things I want to see: 1) An upgrade that allows Terrans to upgrade Bunkers, giving them turrets on top like in the campaign (but a lot stronger).
2) An overall reduction in production costs for the Siege Tank to 150 minerals, 100 gas, 2 supply, and 40 seconds (maybe even 35-38 seconds). And perhaps an upgrade that gives them 20 damage to Shields (or 20 bonus damage to all units).
3) The return of the Goliath, but I won't hold my breath for that one.
4) A more dynamic creep spread. It should spread and recede much faster than it currently does (the creep on the ground, not the tumor spawn cooldown), though this will kill some early builds, so perhaps making the creep tumors weaker (so that sniping them is a little easier, and early game battles will be for sniping tumors). Maybe make Hellions a little faster (and I mean only a little) so there will be closer micro battles between Hellions and Lings off creep so that a good Terran can continuously try to slow down the creep spread (this will make the early and mid game more important than just turtling up until you're ready to hit your timing). Or maybe make speed Zerglings slower off creep. You might have to add a new Protoss air or ground unit that is very mobile to deal with the new creep spread (since otherwise it will easily get out of hand in PvZ).
5) Potential removal of Warp Gate tech. Honestly, it's just too much mobility. There are times I think it's good, but there are also times I think it's beyond broken (funnily enough, sometimes I think it's good BECAUSE it's broken and would otherwise do very little). Maybe remove Warp Gate and double the size capacity of Warp Prisms? I don't know.
6) Probably a ton of counterbuffs to Zerg. I don't know. At the moment, Protoss is way too supply efficient and has too much mobility with Warp Gate and Zealot/DT harass (versus Terran). To give Terran legitimate lategame transitions, you'd have to give some buffs to Zerg, but then they become too strong against Protoss... I don't know. The game is just horrible. Too many bad design decisions were made along the way. You'd have to heavily remake the game.
No offense to BW nostalgia, but that's the worst thing to ever think of possible.. If you don't believe me - try the SC2 BW mod with unlimited unit selection and multiple buildings, and see how would BW fare in the "modern world"
You basically stated the worst thing possible, if you wanna sit on your !@#$%^&* - fine, that thoroughly "describes" your gameplay attitude, but WG is far better designed than any 2 supply 100 gas tank ever would
I agree his suggestions would make the game a lot more passive, which isn't good. Regarding Warpgate, I think there is a difference between overall design concept and the execution of the design.
I think the idea that Blizzard imagined is that you use warptech for mobile harass and to support your army while having Robotech as the core backbone. That's a pretty awesome concept as it would mean that warptech could only do light harass, but in order to really win a battle you would need enough Immortals/Collosus.
However, I think too many of the warpgate units are a bit too strong, which makes various timing attacks really frustrating ot play against. Further, Robo isn't accessible enough as a tech-pattern which means you only have 1 Robo for a big period of the game. I think tbh it would be better if players were "forced" to have more Robo Facitilieis and fewer warpgates.
I think protoss would have felt a ton better as a race if Blizzard had designed protoss in this way;
- Blink Stalkers core stats gets nerfed. Perhaps a slight compensation in a non "straight-up"-engagement way. - Zealots less DPS, more HP (in order to give it a clear role as the "tank" unit" in the compostion. Charge redesigned as well in order to make it more microintensive. - Sentry is kept in the game, but Forcefield removed and instead it has another strong spell which adds countermicro. - Robotics facility cost reduced to 150/50 - Immortal and Collosus becomes more microable/small redesign (various ways to do that) so players are satifised with getting more of them and fewer warptech units instead. - Regarding TvP lategame/ terran mech, I think that's a seperate issue which can be "fixed" by changing terran units
This way, warptech in itself could stay unchanged.
Thanks m8, for once there's something we agreed upon (well partially TBH), rofl :D
I actually thought of swapping the FF with Timewarp (ofc with less radius if it's placed on the Sentry though), lol.. And then tweak the MSC to be a bit more useful in battles before the mid-game comes rather than being useful at home (those 2 alone won't do the trick, but it's somewhat of a start IMO )
Dreamhack valencia had a lot less T going into it, the winrate of the terrans in the round of 16 pretty even. Had tons of more zergs look at the last group stage.
That's typically what happens when a race is underpowered. There are less players of the UP race who rate them selves "comeptitive" and thus fewer that opt to play in the tournament. Terran is a more played race in general than protoss, but it's easier to become "competitive" as protoss, which means more protoss players participate in tournaments.
When there is a strong selection-proces + the tournament doesn't invite all of the very best players in the world (but only some of the best players), then win/rates become useless. I say Dreamhack Valencia fits those criteria
I answered the argument "Its so imbalanced right now because two tournaments have few terrans in the semifinals" with "In this recent tournament there were plenty of terrans the whole way".
Please tell me how my argument can be invalid while his is valid, if you use a select few tournaments to prove your point how come I am not allowed to do the same.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make, to me it seems you are disapproving your own point. (If you are trying to argue for the game being very imbalanced)
According to your own argument the reason its few terrans in the later stages of the tournaments is because there are generally less terran players that are good enough to compete on that high level. So you are arguing the winrates are not imbalanced its just terran being harder to play than the other races. Which is true, this is why foreign terrans have such a hard time being successful compared to korean terrans especially compared to ex broodwar terrans that has such solid mechanics.
I agree with you, the winrates are not imbalanced, the terran race is harder to play at the highest level but that has nothing to do with balance. Just boils down to that the races has such different mechanics.
Dude, I guess you didn't check out Red battlegrounds Atlanta.
You are not serious about this argument right?
Dreamhack valencia had a lot less T going into it, the winrate of the terrans in the round of 16 pretty even. Had tons of more zergs look at the last group stage.
That's typically what happens when a race is underpowered. There are less players of the UP race who rate them selves "comeptitive" and thus fewer that opt to play in the tournament. Terran is a more played race in general than protoss, but it's easier to become "competitive" as protoss, which means more protoss players participate in tournaments.
When there is a strong selection-proces + the tournament doesn't invite all of the very best players in the world (but only some of the best players), then win/rates become useless. I say Dreamhack Valencia fits those criteria
I answered the argument "Its so imbalanced right now because two tournaments have few terrans in the semifinals" with "In this recent tournament there were plenty of terrans the whole way".
Please tell me how my argument can be invalid while his is valid, if you use a select few tournaments to prove your point how come I am not allowed to do the same.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make, to me it seems you are disapproving your own point. (If you are trying to argue for the game being very imbalanced)
According to your own argument the reason its few terrans in the later stages of the tournaments is because there are generally less terran players that are good enough to compete on that high level. So you are arguing the winrates are not imbalanced its just terran being harder to play than the other races. Which is true, this is why foreign terrans have such a hard time being successful compared to korean terrans especially compared to ex broodwar terrans that has such solid mechanics.
I agree with you, the winrates are not imbalanced, the terran race is harder to play at the highest level but that has nothing to do with balance. Just boils down to that the races has such different mechanics.
I don't select a couple of tournaments to proove any point. I think it's just much better to look at Aliguac representation numbers as sample size is much larger there.
But I just found it very weird you were referring to Red Bull tournament as that had a very special invite-structure. I think if you are going to use tournaments as an example of terrans doing well you need to refer to tournament that doesn't have a very special selection-proces.
On July 19 2014 23:41 TW wrote: I hope they release finally this patch before any other tournaments are broken, see Dreamhack, IEM as well, cause it sucks that unless your name is Teaja you cannot advance to final stages.
I wanted to watch Dreamhack but I wont cause I am tired of Ps and Zs.
Dude, I guess you didn't check out Red battlegrounds Atlanta.
TvT finals and no Taeja wasn't even in the finals. /whine why no Z or P in finals gotta balance.
IEM had a pretty much even race distribution and in the quarter finals it was 3P 3Z and 2T, thats actually very balanced.
Dreamhack valencia had a lot less T going into it, the winrate of the terrans in the round of 16 pretty even. Had tons of more zergs look at the last group stage.
Lol, because the only 3 koreans were Polt Bomber and Violet. And they made top3. There is no more terran in the ro8 of DH Valencia. SO yeah, the final terran contender is again, Taeja.
Dude, I guess you didn't check out Red battlegrounds Atlanta.
You are not serious about this argument right?
Dreamhack valencia had a lot less T going into it, the winrate of the terrans in the round of 16 pretty even. Had tons of more zergs look at the last group stage.
That's typically what happens when a race is underpowered. There are less players of the UP race who rate them selves "comeptitive" and thus fewer that opt to play in the tournament. Terran is a more played race in general than protoss, but it's easier to become "competitive" as protoss, which means more protoss players participate in tournaments.
When there is a strong selection-proces + the tournament doesn't invite all of the very best players in the world (but only some of the best players), then win/rates become useless. I say Dreamhack Valencia fits those criteria
I answered the argument "Its so imbalanced right now because two tournaments have few terrans in the semifinals" with "In this recent tournament there were plenty of terrans the whole way".
Please tell me how my argument can be invalid while his is valid, if you use a select few tournaments to prove your point how come I am not allowed to do the same.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make, to me it seems you are disapproving your own point. (If you are trying to argue for the game being very imbalanced)
According to your own argument the reason its few terrans in the later stages of the tournaments is because there are generally less terran players that are good enough to compete on that high level. So you are arguing the winrates are not imbalanced its just terran being harder to play than the other races. Which is true, this is why foreign terrans have such a hard time being successful compared to korean terrans especially compared to ex broodwar terrans that has such solid mechanics.
I agree with you, the winrates are not imbalanced, the terran race is harder to play at the highest level but that has nothing to do with balance. Just boils down to that the races has such different mechanics.
I don't select a couple of tournaments to proove any point. I think it's just much better to look at Aliguac representation numbers as sample size is much larger there.
But I just found it very weird you were referring to Red Bull tournament as that had a very special invite-structure. I think if you are going to use tournaments as an example of terrans doing well you need to refer to tournament that doesn't have a very special selection-proces.
You are right, didn't think about that. Maybe I'm thinking about it a little bit too simplified, will think about what you've said it makes sense.
Going to be interesting to see what changes that comes through and how it will affect things on the bigger stages.
"But since I have never seen Blizzard revert their once-applied changes (big ones, at least), I don't think it's ever gonna happen. If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts." ...
Play some PvZ dude. It is actually the the best matchup in terms of strategy, adaption and variety, and not only massing bio every game like the TvZ/P matchups. Therefore, I am quite sure playing PvZ requires overall the most skill in SC2 if you do not just refer on splitting marines when talking about skill.
On July 20 2014 01:10 LSN wrote: "But since I have never seen Blizzard revert their once-applied changes (big ones, at least), I don't think it's ever gonna happen. If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts." ...
Play some PvZ dude. It is actually the the best matchup in terms of strategy, adaption and variety, and not only massing bio every game like the TvZ/P matchups. Therefore, I am quite sure playing PvZ requires overall the most skill in SC2 if you do not just refer on splitting marines when talking about skill.
;-)
You will never change and your nonesense and lack of insight only shows more the more you post. But come on, continue to argue against the pros even when the majority of Zergs and Protoss believe Terrans are too weak. Valentino Rossi could win races on a bad motobike, didn't make that motobike amazing, but him.
Thats why INnoVatioN, TaeJa & a few others at least manage to keep up, if not always. Imagine them having the same options, good god, it would actually be competition!
On July 19 2014 09:36 Nebuchad wrote: "If I would try to make it short: with whatever balance, Terrans still win tournaments (TaeJa for example), and no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts."
Yeah, Happy, the best terrans are so good that a balanced state would have them win all the time. Good to know. This is a frequent enough view but I didn't expect someone as good as him to have it.
It's almost impossible to prove that what he says is true, but it's generally a shared views among terrans. I personally think that top top tiers terrans are overall better than their couunterparts zergs and protoss. But meh, there is no real evidence so it's probably a general bias.
Terrans just look flashier due to their micro
Yes, and that made the gameplay feel more exciting and fun to watch.
Calm down naruto. Claiming that Terran players are naturally superior to the players of other races and everybody is failing to see this is just the usual nonsense and arrogance that you and other terrans were arguing for years. I just have to question this.
Especially you should realize that this statement of empire.happy was not really related to balance.
On July 20 2014 01:20 LSN wrote: Calm down naruto. Claiming that Terran players are naturally superior to the players of other races and everybody is failing to see this is just the usual nonsense and arrogance that you and other terrans were arguing for years. I just have to question this.
Especially you should realize that this statement of empire.happy was not really related to balance.
I never claimed Terrans being naturally superior. I am claiming there are more than just 4-5 Terrans out there that are very capable of playing the game on the level at least 20-30 Protoss and Zerg manage to play it on and I claim those 4-5 Terrans that manage to be on top and still win are exceptional talents.
I never said there is no Protoss or Zerg player talented, I would never dare to say so, but you are just an uninformed tool that goofs around Teamliquid. I don't even want to quote what you previously what on the balance discussion about females having an advantage over males - or was it the other way around? :D
On July 20 2014 01:20 LSN wrote: Calm down naruto. Claiming that Terran players are naturally superior to the players of other races and everybody is failing to see this is just the usual nonsense and arrogance that you and other terrans were arguing for years. I just have to question this.
Especially you should realize that this statement of empire.happy was not really related to balance.
Everything you say makes zero sense. I still waiting for that "game deciding" 8 marine medivac push on standard 2 base play that you see "all the time".
Happy is getting a massive pass for what he said, honestly. I knew and expected from the start that he wouldn't get the Rain treatment, that's fine, but to attack the people who point out he's being ridic... That's kind of bad.
Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics. Can you prove the opposite btw?
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
Depends on how you define skill. Effort of playing Terran is higher than the effort of playing Protoss I would dare to say. Protoss has a hard time if Terran is actually very good - if the Terran has slightest mistakes, there is already a big problem of creating pressure, which will snowball in TvP for example.
Ofcourse, you would need to have deeper understanding of the game which you don't. As mentioned, no one said (besides Happy) that there is no godlike Zerg od Protoss, but across the top level Terrans or pro-level Terrans, I dare to say that the effort of playing the race takes its toll on them. Do you want to tell me there are 5 Terrans overall capable of playing on the highest level, because seemingly all other talented people in the world c hose Zerg/Protoss? You have to be kidding me
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
Depends on how you define skill. Effort of playing Terran is higher than the effort of playing Protoss I would dare to say. Protoss has a hard time if Terran is actually very good - if the Terran has slightest mistakes, there is already a big problem of creating pressure, which will snowball in TvP for example.
Ofcourse, you would need to have deeper understanding of the game which you don't. As mentioned, no one said (besides Happy) that there is no godlike Zerg od Protoss, but across the top level Terrans or pro-level Terrans, I dare to say that the effort of playing the race takes its toll on them. Do you want to tell me there are 5 Terrans overall capable of playing on the highest level, because seemingly all other talented people in the world c hose Zerg/Protoss? You have to be kidding me
This is getting on a dumb level as the only thing you obviously want to do is attacking me. nnty & bye, forum admins should have taken care of you long time ago! :D
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
Depends on how you define skill. Effort of playing Terran is higher than the effort of playing Protoss I would dare to say. Protoss has a hard time if Terran is actually very good - if the Terran has slightest mistakes, there is already a big problem of creating pressure, which will snowball in TvP for example.
Ofcourse, you would need to have deeper understanding of the game which you don't. As mentioned, no one said (besides Happy) that there is no godlike Zerg od Protoss, but across the top level Terrans or pro-level Terrans, I dare to say that the effort of playing the race takes its toll on them. Do you want to tell me there are 5 Terrans overall capable of playing on the highest level, because seemingly all other talented people in the world c hose Zerg/Protoss? You have to be kidding me
You connect two things that aren't related in order to make your argument look better. The fact that there are terrans still performing well while Z and P are better races than T doesn't mean that the top T players are better skill-wise than top Z-P players. I'm just going to go with the most likely hypothesis that is top players across all races are of similar skill level (say top 5 T, P, Z). P players are winning the most followed by Z and T players are winning the least. Your argument is as likely as the one of those who claim that T/Z top players are all in a slump while P players became very good at the exact same time.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
Depends on how you define skill. Effort of playing Terran is higher than the effort of playing Protoss I would dare to say. Protoss has a hard time if Terran is actually very good - if the Terran has slightest mistakes, there is already a big problem of creating pressure, which will snowball in TvP for example.
Ofcourse, you would need to have deeper understanding of the game which you don't. As mentioned, no one said (besides Happy) that there is no godlike Zerg od Protoss, but across the top level Terrans or pro-level Terrans, I dare to say that the effort of playing the race takes its toll on them. Do you want to tell me there are 5 Terrans overall capable of playing on the highest level, because seemingly all other talented people in the world c hose Zerg/Protoss? You have to be kidding me
You connect two things that aren't related in order to make your argument look better. The fact that there are terrans still performing well while Z and P are better races than T doesn't mean that the top T players are better skill-wise than top Z-P players. I'm just going to go with the most likely hypothesis that is top players across all races are of similar skill level (say top 5 T, P, Z). P players are winning the most followed by Z and T players are winning the least.
If the average Protoss and Zerg player across progaming is more successful compared to the Terran counterpart, yet keeps losing to the same top Terrans over and over, it seems like those few Terrans that manage to win are in fact - better. I have never compared "top 3" Terran vs "top 3" Protoss. I don't believe you can break it down to such low numbers , but in average if you talk about progaming you can.
As you can see, I am not connecting things to make them look better. If your argument is right the only reason for Protoss or Zerg winning a lot more tournaments would actually be absence of Terrans, lack of Terran players or bad luck. And you surely don't want to tell me that there are no Terran players present in big tournaments, we have a lack of players overall or simply bad luck?
If you checked the past in which Protoss didn't "win" a ton, we at least had a lot of presence of Protoss in the finals in which they seemingly choked. If I remember corretly, Terran and Zerg did win, especially Terran did win a lot, but it was the same Terrans all over again and it were a lot of different Protoss hitting the finals in which they lost.
Now its not just not having a Terran in the final or semifinal, but not even close to those ranks and especially in numbers compared to Z/P.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
Depends on how you define skill. Effort of playing Terran is higher than the effort of playing Protoss I would dare to say. Protoss has a hard time if Terran is actually very good - if the Terran has slightest mistakes, there is already a big problem of creating pressure, which will snowball in TvP for example.
Ofcourse, you would need to have deeper understanding of the game which you don't. As mentioned, no one said (besides Happy) that there is no godlike Zerg od Protoss, but across the top level Terrans or pro-level Terrans, I dare to say that the effort of playing the race takes its toll on them. Do you want to tell me there are 5 Terrans overall capable of playing on the highest level, because seemingly all other talented people in the world c hose Zerg/Protoss? You have to be kidding me
This is getting on a dumb level as the only thing you obviously want to do is attacking me. nnty & bye, forum admins should have taken care of you long time ago! :D
Same behaviour like in the past. Cannot challenge the points made "see you man, not talking to you" :3
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics. Can you prove the opposite btw?
Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
The burden of proof is on you, not on us. What Happy is arguing implies that in a balanced state, terran should win just about everything, because they're superior players. Well we're not going to just take his word for it, I'm sure you can imagine why.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
The burden of proof is on you, not on us. What Happy is arguing implies that in a balanced state, terran should win just about everything, because they're superior players. Well we're not going to just take his word for it, I'm sure you can imagine why.
No. The burden of proof is on the one stating "I say that (...) top 5 of each race are equally skilled" because he's the one asserting something. I am merely stating it is probably impossible to know exactly. I am not claiming that top players from race A are better than those from race B or C.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
The burden of proof is on you, not on us. What Happy is arguing implies that in a balanced state, terran should win just about everything, because they're superior players. Well we're not going to just take his word for it, I'm sure you can imagine why.
The same game works on you guys. The burden of proof is on you - as you are winning everything but saying that your race isn't too strong neither Terran too weak. Isn't that implying that the players are superior?
Well P is the easiest to play race. Nevertheless skill does not necessarily (imo not at all) refer to how easy a race is to handle in the concurrent balance situation. There is neither a proof for nor against it and therefore I guess we have to go with what is likely and that is that the top players of all races are about on equal skill level. You can't blame the protoss for the fact that his race is easier to play than terran or zerg these days.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
The burden of proof is on you, not on us. What Happy is arguing implies that in a balanced state, terran should win just about everything, because they're superior players. Well we're not going to just take his word for it, I'm sure you can imagine why.
As you can see, I am not connecting things to make them look better. If your argument is right the only reason for Protoss or Zerg winning a lot more tournaments would actually be absence of Terrans, lack of Terran players or bad luck. And you surely don't want to tell me that there are no Terran players present in big tournaments, we have a lack of players overall or simply bad luck?
If you checked the past in which Protoss didn't "win" a ton, we at least had a lot of presence of Protoss in the finals in which they seemingly choked. If I remember corretly, Terran and Zerg did win, especially Terran did win a lot, but it was the same Terrans all over again and it were a lot of different Protoss hitting the finals in which they lost.
This is more likely due to the more coinflippy nature of protoss matchups (in WOL especially), where terran has always been a more mechanically focussed race. That resulted in skilled terrans more consistently being able to get far in tournaments while skilled protosses were more likely to drop out due to variance.
But this isn't an argument to claim that 5 protoss = better than top 5 terrans, but rather that it is easier to identify the best terrans than the best protosses.
No. The burden of proof is on the one stating "I say that (...) top 5 of each race are equally skilled" because he's the one asserting something. I am merely stating it is probably impossible to know exactly. I am not claiming that top players from race A are better than those from race B or C.
No it's not. We have no reason to assume otherwise, and if there are are no obvious differences in the selection of players choosing protoss, terran or zerg, then the average zerg, terran or protoss should have the same skill, and thus on average (over a long period of time) the top 5 for each race should be equally skilled.
That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepancy in skill level. Thus, we must assume in any point in time that they are equally skilled (unless evidence points to the contrary).
Further, it was Happy who started making the claim, but he came with no arguments to supoprt it. All LSN did was to bring that up.
At last, how many times have I over the last month mentioned that if we assume average terran = average protoss.... then statistics shows terran = UP. But you have never ever said anything against that, despite the extremely unlikelyhood that you haven't read it. But then when LSN points it up as an argument "against" terran, then you start questioning his assumption and demand that he comes with proof. That's a pretty big double-standard there.
On July 20 2014 01:59 LSN wrote: Well P is the easiest to play race. Nevertheless skill does not necessarily (imo not at all) refer to how easy a race is to handle in the concurrent balance situation. There is neither a proof for nor against it and therefore I guess we have to with what is likely and that is that the top players of all races are about on equal skill level. You can't blame the protoss for the fact that his race is easier to play than terran or zerg these days.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
The burden of proof is on you, not on us. What Happy is arguing implies that in a balanced state, terran should win just about everything, because they're superior players. Well we're not going to just take his word for it, I'm sure you can imagine why.
Furthermore this is exactly right.
If you are saying that Protoss is easier to play, doesn't that make a Terran that can challenge a Protoss on the highest level more skilled, as his race takes more effort to play ?
In a deeper sense it does not. The player might have the same skill as the terran even tho he does not need to use all of it when playing against terran while the terran does. But you guys also forget that playing z/p is not only about playing vs t. As I tried to imply in my original post, ZvP is quita a demanding and skill heavy matchup for both of the involved parties.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
The burden of proof is on you, not on us. What Happy is arguing implies that in a balanced state, terran should win just about everything, because they're superior players. Well we're not going to just take his word for it, I'm sure you can imagine why.
And about that Happy's sentence, I read it like 15 times already and I'm still confused on how to interpret it.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
Depends on how you define skill. Effort of playing Terran is higher than the effort of playing Protoss I would dare to say. Protoss has a hard time if Terran is actually very good - if the Terran has slightest mistakes, there is already a big problem of creating pressure, which will snowball in TvP for example.
Ofcourse, you would need to have deeper understanding of the game which you don't. As mentioned, no one said (besides Happy) that there is no godlike Zerg od Protoss, but across the top level Terrans or pro-level Terrans, I dare to say that the effort of playing the race takes its toll on them. Do you want to tell me there are 5 Terrans overall capable of playing on the highest level, because seemingly all other talented people in the world c hose Zerg/Protoss? You have to be kidding me
You connect two things that aren't related in order to make your argument look better. The fact that there are terrans still performing well while Z and P are better races than T doesn't mean that the top T players are better skill-wise than top Z-P players. I'm just going to go with the most likely hypothesis that is top players across all races are of similar skill level (say top 5 T, P, Z). P players are winning the most followed by Z and T players are winning the least.
If the average Protoss and Zerg player across progaming is more successful compared to the Terran counterpart, yet keeps losing to the same top Terrans over and over, it seems like those few Terrans that manage to win are in fact - better. I have never compared "top 3" Terran vs "top 3" Protoss. I don't believe you can break it down to such low numbers , but in average if you talk about progaming you can.
As you can see, I am not connecting things to make them look better. If your argument is right the only reason for Protoss or Zerg winning a lot more tournaments would actually be absence of Terrans, lack of Terran players or bad luck. And you surely don't want to tell me that there are no Terran players present in big tournaments, we have a lack of players overall or simply bad luck?
If you checked the past in which Protoss didn't "win" a ton, we at least had a lot of presence of Protoss in the finals in which they seemingly choked. If I remember corretly, Terran and Zerg did win, especially Terran did win a lot, but it was the same Terrans all over again and it were a lot of different Protoss hitting the finals in which they lost.
Now its not just not having a Terran in the final or semifinal, but not even close to those ranks and especially in numbers compared to Z/P.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
Depends on how you define skill. Effort of playing Terran is higher than the effort of playing Protoss I would dare to say. Protoss has a hard time if Terran is actually very good - if the Terran has slightest mistakes, there is already a big problem of creating pressure, which will snowball in TvP for example.
Ofcourse, you would need to have deeper understanding of the game which you don't. As mentioned, no one said (besides Happy) that there is no godlike Zerg od Protoss, but across the top level Terrans or pro-level Terrans, I dare to say that the effort of playing the race takes its toll on them. Do you want to tell me there are 5 Terrans overall capable of playing on the highest level, because seemingly all other talented people in the world c hose Zerg/Protoss? You have to be kidding me
This is getting on a dumb level as the only thing you obviously want to do is attacking me. nnty & bye, forum admins should have taken care of you long time ago! :D
Same behaviour like in the past. Cannot challenge the points made "see you man, not talking to you" :3
I stated clearly, for those familiar with English, that the reason for less T result is the weakness of terran. You are backing Happy's argument of T progamers being more skilled than Z/P especially at the very top..very top. You said top T progamers beat average P progamers while, said average P progamers, beat their terran counterparts. Now this in no way suggests what Happy said. The fact that top T players beat average players of other races does not mean that they are better players skill wise compared to P and Z players especially at the very top.
Imagine this scenario: there are archers and gunmen. Now, if they were to engage in a duel an average gunman would probably be victorious against an average archer. Some very very talented archers, however, would manage to beat the average gunman but would probably lose to very very talented gunmen. Now, in which way can I logically infer that the best gunmen would lose to the best archers if they were to use the same weapon? (obviously not counting their practice with bow/gun). If you answer this question convincingly it is possible to back up Happy's argument without looking very biased and illogical.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
The burden of proof is on you, not on us. What Happy is arguing implies that in a balanced state, terran should win just about everything, because they're superior players. Well we're not going to just take his word for it, I'm sure you can imagine why.
The same game works on you guys. The burden of proof is on you - as you are winning everything but saying that your race isn't too strong neither Terran too weak. Isn't that implying that the players are superior?
In what universe did I say terran wasn't weak? I don't know if you've been following, but terran is getting buffed these days, and everyone agrees with the buff...
Dwf: the assertion was made by Happy initially, come on...
On July 20 2014 02:03 LSN wrote: In a deeper sense it does not. The player might have the same skill as the terran even tho he does not need to use all of it when playing against terran while the terran does.
Well - nerfing the race or buffing Terran would be the right call then. To increase the potential of Protoss and/or give the option to a really skilled PRotoss/Zerg to actually show it and compete with Terrans on equal terms. The result is either Protoss players falling down, because they were where they are because of the easier race OR Protoss players sticking around and/or rising. All is possible.
No matter how you turn it - buff to Terran or nerf to Protoss the way you put it is the right call.
On July 20 2014 02:03 LSN wrote: In a deeper sense it does not. The player might have the same skill as the terran even tho he does not need to use all of it when playing against terran while the terran does.
Well - nerfing the race or buffing Terran would be the right call then. To increase the potential of Protoss and/or give the option to a really skilled PRotoss/Zerg to actually show it and compete with Terrans on equal terms. The result is either Protoss players falling down, because they were where they are because of the easier race OR Protoss players sticking around and/or rising. All is possible.
No matter how you turn it - buff to Terran or nerf to Protoss the way you put it is the right call.
Btw. this was a hypothesis following the assumption of you that protoss requires less skill to play. I did it to just show up that even if it is true, this has no connection to the actual skill of players.
Another hypothesis is that this what makes playing terran more difficult to play than protoss is not related to skill (in the original sense) but mainly to mechanics (e.g. low apm). Of course I know that mechanics are a major part of SC2 skill. But I believe that all korean pros are capable of releasing similar levels of mechanics. Just the protoss does not need it that much. This brings us back to the first hypothesis.
Also the amount of mistakes a player can do or not do, the amount of intuitive gameplay, the amount of great moves a player can do (etc.), does not necessarily relate on how easy a race is to play, which is also for sure an expression of skill. Explanation: Stuff like awareness, attention, and doing the right thing in the right moment decide alot about the outcome of many games. No matter how much more difficult terran is to play, in these short situations that can decide everything all races are about equal imo. Sniping/emping templars or feedbacking/psiing ghosts is about equally up there I'd say.
I do want to mention again that I support terran getting some lategame transitions and buffs and protoss needs something that makes it not "that easy" to play and win. I feel like zerg is right inbetween these two and due to larva management mechanics not that easily comparable to the other two tho.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
It is just highly likely when following common rules of statistics.
Why? Globally there is no reason to believe otherwise, but if we take the very few individuals at the top why should we make the assumption that Maru + Bogus + TaeJa = soO + Soulkey + Life = Zest + herO + sOs? (Replace with whoever you think belongs to the topX of the race at any given time.)
The burden of proof is on you, not on us. What Happy is arguing implies that in a balanced state, terran should win just about everything, because they're superior players. Well we're not going to just take his word for it, I'm sure you can imagine why.
The same game works on you guys. The burden of proof is on you - as you are winning everything but saying that your race isn't too strong neither Terran too weak. Isn't that implying that the players are superior?
In what universe did I say terran wasn't weak? I don't know if you've been following, but terran is getting buffed these days, and everyone agrees with the buff...
Dwf: the assertion was made by Happy initially, come on...
Yeh, this is such an insane argument. Especially since terrans challenging the assumption of equally skilled doens't even bring them any "favours" at all. Just maintaining the assumption implies that terran is in fact UP statistically. There is no need to go into a hypothetical argument where we imagine terrans being buffed and getting similar results as toss/zergs, and then not being strong enough, because they are just better players and should have better results.
That's such a "thin" line to walk on, because protoss players and zergs could easily say the same thing: "You terrans are just bad, and thus doesn't deserve to win games". How can you ever discuss balance when you can make these random assumptions and then claim that it is the other side who must proof that they are equally skilled.
To me, this is all about consistency, if you wanna put out lack of results and underpresentation as an argumentat that terran is UP, then you have to make the equally skilled assumptions. You cannot go around challenging assumptions when the assumption doens't benefit you and then keep the assumption when it benefits your argument. That's the definiton of double-standard.
On July 20 2014 02:12 Hider wrote: That's such a "thin" line to walk on, because protoss players and zergs could easily say the same thing: "You terrans are just bad, and thus doesn't deserve to win games". How can you ever discuss balance when you can make these random assumptions and then claim that it is the other side who must proof that they are equally skilled.
On July 20 2014 02:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Shouldn't you guys get back on topic? You're nitpicking and ignoring each other and have had 2 pages of discussion not related to the topic at hand.
What is there to discuss really?
I think it's more important to stand up against clear usage of bias/double-standard since that doens't belong in serious discussions.
On July 20 2014 02:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Shouldn't you guys get back on topic? You're nitpicking and ignoring each other and have had 2 pages of discussion not related to the topic at hand.
What is there to discuss really?
I think it's more important to stand up against clear usage of bias/double-standard since that doens't belong in serious discussions.
Report it to the mods, maybe make a comment on it, but dont drag the thread down with you?
You might discuss, I dont know, the opinions of pro players on the proposed balance changes?
On July 20 2014 02:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Shouldn't you guys get back on topic? You're nitpicking and ignoring each other and have had 2 pages of discussion not related to the topic at hand.
What is there to discuss really?
I think it's more important to stand up against clear usage of bias/double-standard since that doens't belong in serious discussions.
You might discuss, I dont know, the opinions of pro players on the proposed balance changes?
But the whole thing was about exactly this. So what do you want?
On July 20 2014 02:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Shouldn't you guys get back on topic? You're nitpicking and ignoring each other and have had 2 pages of discussion not related to the topic at hand.
What is there to discuss really?
I think it's more important to stand up against clear usage of bias/double-standard since that doens't belong in serious discussions.
You might discuss, I dont know, the opinions of pro players on the proposed balance changes?
But the whole thing was about exactly this. So what do you want?
This is exactly what I am asking you not to do. Troll?
Let me try to put it back in place, Which pro comes across as least biased and would be your pick to give a 5h lecture to the balance team? I'd say Snute wouls be hgood!
On July 20 2014 02:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Shouldn't you guys get back on topic? You're nitpicking and ignoring each other and have had 2 pages of discussion not related to the topic at hand.
What is there to discuss really?
I think it's more important to stand up against clear usage of bias/double-standard since that doens't belong in serious discussions.
Report it to the mods, maybe make a comment on it, but dont drag the thread down with you?
You might discuss, I dont know, the opinions of pro players on the proposed balance changes?
Don't think double-standards/bias are against the rules.
But regarding the changes, noone really disagrees on very much. Mine-change is only debateable one where people think it only impacts mdgame and that late game is the real problem. However, I believe that analysis shows a misunderstanding of how TvZ works. Typically a Zerg gets ahead in midgame as he efficiently can spread creep and take expos quite safely. When a terran player overcommits he can typically overrun him. But he cannot end the game in the midgame due to how weak his army is offcreep.
Thus, the game will drag into the lategame with the zerg in an advantage. Then the zerg will get a 200/200 army that costs like 50% more of the terran army and easily a-move to victory in late game. Then Destiny will go on a show arguing that his lategame army is just too good while in that situation ignoring that he got his advantage throughout the midgame.
And ofc, also ignore that Widow Mines do help in the late game as well (same thing with Thor change).
And yes everybody also seems to agree that ther is an issue with TvP late game, though it remains to be seen how the Widow mine will work out (though I doubt it).
On July 20 2014 02:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Shouldn't you guys get back on topic? You're nitpicking and ignoring each other and have had 2 pages of discussion not related to the topic at hand.
What is there to discuss really?
I think it's more important to stand up against clear usage of bias/double-standard since that doens't belong in serious discussions.
Report it to the mods, maybe make a comment on it, but dont drag the thread down with you?
You might discuss, I dont know, the opinions of pro players on the proposed balance changes?
We are discussing Happy's opinion (he is a pro player) on the proposed balance changes. Sorry "mod".
On July 20 2014 02:33 SC2Toastie wrote: Shouldn't you guys get back on topic? You're nitpicking and ignoring each other and have had 2 pages of discussion not related to the topic at hand.
What is there to discuss really?
I think it's more important to stand up against clear usage of bias/double-standard since that doens't belong in serious discussions.
You might discuss, I dont know, the opinions of pro players on the proposed balance changes?
But the whole thing was about exactly this. So what do you want?
This is exactly what I am asking you not to do. Troll?
Let me try to put it back in place, Which pro comes across as least biased and would be your pick to give a 5h lecture to the balance team? I'd say Snute wouls be hgood!
The funny thing is that you are exactly doing what you blaming me for. You come here, claim we are off-topic while we discuss one of the statements of the proplayers, which is topic of the thread. = troll
On July 20 2014 01:51 Hider wrote: Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias.
That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepencacy in skill level.
Which is exactly what I said, except I somehow get called "hypocrite" for saying that the contrary of X (= an assertion as well) is as unproven as X. Next time, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I write.
On July 20 2014 01:51 Hider wrote: Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias.
That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepencacy in skill level.
Which is exactly what I said, except I somehow get called "hypocrite" for saying that the contrary of X (= an assertion as well) is as unproven as X. Next time, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I write.
I belive you are being a hyporcritte because you only wanted "proof" of the assumption once it went against terran. The assumption has been made countless time before as a support in the claim of terran being UP. Why have you never challenged that assumption before?
Happy was the one who started out by claiming the contrary. Why do you not demand any proof from him?
Why demand proof from a guy who takes a consistent unbiased approach (equal skill)? Why not simple just accept it as very reasonable assumption? And FYI, assumptions are per se unproven. If they always were true, then they wouldn't be called assumptions. You do not demand "proof" of assumptions, rather all you need is a short explaination of why they are reasonable, and that should be pretty obvious here.
On July 20 2014 03:07 TheDwf wrote: Last clarification from my part on that debate:
On July 20 2014 01:51 Hider wrote: Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias.
That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepencacy in skill level.
Which is exactly what I said, except I somehow get called "hypocrite" for saying that the contrary of X (= an assertion as well) is as unproven as X. Next time, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I write.
I belive you are being a hyporcritte because you only wanted "proof" of the assumption once it went against terran. The assumption has been made countless time before as a support in the claim of terran being UP. Why have you never challenged that assumption before?
Happy was the one who started out by claiming the contrary. Why do you not demand any proof from him?
Why demand proof from a guy who takes a consistent unbiased approach (equal skill)? Why not simple just accept it as very reasonable assumption?
On July 20 2014 03:07 TheDwf wrote: Last clarification from my part on that debate:
On July 20 2014 01:51 Hider wrote: Well it's unlikely that the top 5 are exactly equaly skilled, but obviously one cannot go around and assume that T's are better than P's (or vice versa). When you go down that line, then all statistical analysis are just gonna result in a ton of bias.
That doens't mean that they are equally skilled at all points in times, but rather that we have no way reliable way of telling when there is a discrepencacy in skill level.
Which is exactly what I said, except I somehow get called "hypocrite" for saying that the contrary of X (= an assertion as well) is as unproven as X. Next time, please stop putting words in my mouth and stick to what I write.
I belive you are being a hyporcritte because you only wanted "proof" of the assumption once it went against terran. The assumption has been made countless time before as a support in the claim of terran being UP. Why have you never challenged that assumption before?
Happy was the one who started out by claiming the contrary. Why do you not demand any proof from him?
Why demand proof from a guy who takes a consistent unbiased approach (equal skill)? Why not simple just accept it as very reasonable assumption?
I read what you wrote, that doesn't really change anything. The point is (as I wrote previously) that it's a reasonable assumption becasue on average it will be correct and we have no way of telling whenever it isn't correct. If we start to try and "bend" the assumption, then it will suffer significantly from bias. At least you need some insanely good arguments to proof otherwise (thus, the burden of proof is on the other side).
But obvously, in any serious analysis you need to take into account how realiable your assumptions are.
In the context of a statistical analysis, that means that if you look at how the top terrans, top protosses and top zergs do and compare them to each other, then you cannot really conclude anything if there only is a relatively small difference in succes. However, if all of the top protosses totally outperform the top terrans, then we can say with a pretty high probability that terran is UP at the highest level.
So in the conclusion, one looks at the assumptions, but just in order to get started with the analysis, you need to make assumptions that are reasonable, even though they aren't always true.
As a random player, i do think there is some evidence that playing Terran is more dependant on your mechanics.
I do notice an improvement in my apm and multitasking abilities for all races when i play terran consistently for a couple of weeks as supposed to when i play Protoss more intensively.
Mechanics are a part of skill but not necessarily the only contributing factor. Perhaps Happy was referring to the mechanical aspect of skill.
On July 20 2014 03:48 Mojito99 wrote: As a random player, i do think there is some evidence that playing Terran is more dependant on your mechanics.
I do notice an improvement in my apm and multitasking abilities for all races when i play terran consistently for a couple of weeks as supposed to when i play Protoss more intensively.
Mechanics are a part of skill but not necessarily the only contributing factor. Perhaps Happy was referring to the mechanical aspect of skill.
Doesn't make sense in the context. He was referring to how Blizzard should take into account that the very few top terrans are better when they look at tournament results.
That means actual skills, not just mechanics.
One way you could justify Happy's comments is that he is only refferring to special invite tournaments, which invites a bunch of decent players of all race and then 1 really really good terran (Taeja). So when Taeja wins a tournament, it's not becasue terran isn't UP, but that there is a "flaw" in the invite structure.
But I think Blizzard takes that into account. I don't think Blizzard only looks at premier tournament wins to assess balance. I think they take into acocunt if there only is 1 or 2 terrans in Ro8.
My take on this, terran is more mechanical taxing than other races that does not they re more skilled. They are skilled in different ways, and zerg demands skills that playing terran does not. For example managing unit production as zerg, when to drone when to ling. Very sensitive, one mistake and death. Not more or less demanding in skill, demanding in different ways.
Terran used to win tons of tournaments because terran has higher skill ceiling means they can micro the shit out of marines(most op unit in game in the right hands), WMs, drop micro, spliting and so on. Terran can do more with their units than the other races, thats why terran gods can keep up while most other terran is falling off. Its not only being able to micro like a god, its being able to do that while keeping their macro going.
Tournaments aren't an exactly perfect tool to figure balance out either. Remember back in BW when Flash was winning? Terran OP? Remember the era of the 6 dragoons (protoss players). Protoss OP? Tournaments aren't perfect either. Remember the 5 hatch build in PvZ where your high templars were almost guaranteed to be sniped by muta stack? There was a discussion for a patch back then if I remember correctly.
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
Following up on my previous post to clear things up:
the issue isn't who is more or less skilled. Silly that magically all the best players played Terran in 2011, Zerg in 2012 and Protoss in 2013 is just silly. Assuming that, on average, players of different races have the same skill, it's obvious that Terran needs help right now.
The point is, you really shouldn't clog up 2 pages worth of this thread with discussion about it, especially when it's just a couple of posters arguing.
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote: Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
I wrote this in the last page:
Mine-change is only debateable one where people think it only impacts mdgame and that late game is the real problem. However, I believe that analysis shows a misunderstanding of how TvZ works. Typically a Zerg gets ahead in midgame as he efficiently can spread creep and take expos quite safely. When a terran player overcommits he can typically overrun him. But he cannot end the game in the midgame due to how weak his army is offcreep.
Thus, the game will drag into the lategame with the zerg in an advantage. Then the zerg will get a 200/200 army that costs like 50% more of the terran army and easily a-move to victory in late game. Then Destiny will go on a show arguing that his lategame army is just too good while in that situation ignoring that he got his advantage throughout the midgame.
And ofc, also ignore that Widow Mines do help in the late game as well (same thing with Thor change).
It is the impact of creep-spread which creates an unusually large defenders advantage in the matchup, and it is the effect it has on the gameplay that creates the whole "midgame" is balanced confusion.
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote: Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
A stronger mid-game for Terran will result in a weaker late-game for Zerg, especially due to the nature of larva mechanics. Z has to invest more into mid-game to survive so late-game comes later, and/or in weaker numbers.
Overall, I don't know if widow-mine buff will be too much in TvP. The only test is whether Terrans can force Protoss to change their play enough to address the power of the mines, i.e. collosi play is mandatory (and therefore, predictable) etc. But blink micro counter mines as well, so there are options still for negating mine damage. This would require more actions from the Protoss, like, positioning detection, blink-micro if blink-stalkers are the choice, to negate the mines. To elaborate this point: A properly defended mine-drop will now kill 1 worker really really hard. Blink-stalkers disjointing the mines will mean that empty space will be hit really really hard. And when collosi hit the field, well that's that.
My prediction: Will make life hell for most Protoss on ladder; thus the huge outpouring of tears in this thread. Top (Mostly Korean, and Naniwa in top-form) Protoss will brush it off, since anti-mine play from Protoss was already well-established to be able to negate most damage. If that damage is higher, it means the mistakes will be punished harder.
At the top-most level, this change will be a smaller buff, since it seems designed to punish mistakes harder from P and Z. The only substantial change at top-most level TvP is the predictability of the Protoss reaction when forced to do something about mines blowing up everything. So, more collosi/blink play. But seriously, that is only fair, Terran is very predictable to Protoss as well.
PS. And with chargelots' guaranteed auto-hit, mine drag is definitely another possibility of addressing mines; maybe to be used in conjunction with other styles in late-game stages where all Protoss tech opens up.
PPS. I remember some Protoss complaining that stalkers getting into the range of mines were a bug and needed to be fixed, even when the mines were in a nerfed state. So yeah, expect lots more of those posts on TL and BNet forums.
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote: Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
Mine-change is only debateable one where people think it only impacts mdgame and that late game is the real problem. However, I believe that analysis shows a misunderstanding of how TvZ works. Typically a Zerg gets ahead in midgame as he efficiently can spread creep and take expos quite safely. When a terran player overcommits he can typically overrun him. But he cannot end the game in the midgame due to how weak his army is offcreep.
Thus, the game will drag into the lategame with the zerg in an advantage. Then the zerg will get a 200/200 army that costs like 50% more of the terran army and easily a-move to victory in late game. Then Destiny will go on a show arguing that his lategame army is just too good while in that situation ignoring that he got his advantage throughout the midgame.
And ofc, also ignore that Widow Mines do help in the late game as well (same thing with Thor change).
It is the impact of creep-spread which creates an unusually large defenders advantage in the matchup, and it is the effect it has on the gameplay that creates the whole "midgame" is balanced confusion.
I totally agree with you about that. What decide the lategame is obviously the midgame. If a terran manages to take the upper hand in the midgame by securing a 4th while putting pressure on the zerg's 4th, restraining him from getting a huge muta balls too early and teching 3/3 and ultras while having creep on 3/4 of the map, the terran can compete without problem into the late game. It's not the late game zerg in itsellf that is OP, it's the fact that it comes way too fast. A terran can deal with 3/3 gling and 5/3 ultras if they have the same economy and the creep isn't on your 4th. The problem right now is the snowball effect where terran can't put any pressure on the zergs 4th while the zerg has no problem for denying it a lot. The key thing in TvZ's late game transition is really the 4th expand. Back when we had this awesome Innovation vs DRG series, I remember that the game Inno won was when he managed to secure his 4th, and the 2 loses was when DRG sniped it. The problem right now is that a terran can't deny the 4th at all while he has a really hard time taking his.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
Sorry but the game does not revolve around you. If you dont want to adapt, its your own fault. Whats wrong with including a robo in your build? Immortal, templar, zealot compositions are very strong against bio, plus you get detection and are able to snipe mines with immortals.
There's nothing wrong with opening robo into templar. It's how Protoss played Templar openings throughout all of WoL and the first half of HotS. The only time we really started to see roboless templar play was when blink was so strong. HOWEVER, even with a robo, it's difficult just because the execution of poking out with stalkers to kill mines without getting your observer killed is very very difficult. On top of that, you really can't afford more than 4-6 stalkers in a templar opening because the templar cost sooooooooo much gas.
On July 19 2014 11:23 Faust852 wrote: People should stop saying that protoss are forced to play colossi atm, this is in no way true. It might be with the future patch, but it's currently not the case at all. Protoss are not forced to play colossi. It's just that it's easier and safer, so they use that. But in no way HT opening are not viable.
You should try (At least in Masters league) to get consistant result with templar openings, you would see how inconsistent it vs Robo builds.With a Robo build you can survive a mis-scouted Widow mine drop/play whereas with Templar openings you have no way of defending widow mine harass unless you manage to pick them off before they burrow.
Some say '' Well build a robo anyway even if templar opening '', but it delays Charge/Storm sufficiently that you can barely/can't hold the regular timing pushes Terrans are doing atm
What? How can that be true? Widow mines dont move when they are burrowed. Storm the area or run drones and build a single cannon. You have a forge for upgrades, right? In the event you need a meatshield to soak up a shot of WM, make an archon. Shields regenerate.
On July 19 2014 13:20 Loccstana wrote: Widow mines still dont do enough damage. They need to make it do 125 splash in the entire radius. I want to see games like this:
A few problems. First, the auto-ball feature of SC2 makes it more deadly. I don't recall whether in SC:BW if you separated a few units and then clicked to move to an area, they stayed in formation or not. It can be done to some degree in SC2, but its costly APM that can go into macro or kiting.
The WM is still easily visible in the ground without need for an observer. SM's aren't. SM's can detect and kill cloaked units. WM's can't.
One of my peeves about the WM is it's lack of micro in a big battle situation. Any interaction with the WM causes the countdown to fire to reset, which essentially makes attempting to use them intelligently useless in most scenarios except mineral line drops or defense against some small time harass.
You can't afford to use storms on widow mines unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 storms to kill a widow mine, and you need the storms for the bio. During the mid-game against a good terran executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 storms on the bio with a chargelot/templar style you just die. Further, if you don't have any zealots left over because they all got killed by mines, you just die. The mines zone the templar out and destroy zealots very well.
You can't afford to use emp on high templar unless they're all super clumped up in the same spot and not spread out like they should be, at least not in the mid-game. It takes 2 emps to drain a templar's energy, and you need the emps for the rest of the protoss army. During the mid-game against a good protoss executing well, if you don't hit at least 2-3 emps on the chargelot/templar with a bio/ghost style you just die. Further, if you don't have any bio left over because they all got killed by the templar, you just die. The storms zone the ghosts out and destroy bio very well.
This is the most near-sighted and dumb thing I've read on TL. There is never a point in which you are so short on ghost mana (especially after the recent buff), and even then ghosts are still useful for DPS. A HT without energy for storm is a useless unit. The problem with the mine/zealot problem in question is that it's very difficult to clear the mines and zealots/archons just slowly get kited and mined to death. Whitewing put it eloquently with the phrase "hemorrhaging units". The end solution is a lot like the old TvZs. You just keep trading gas units and taking inefficient trades until you can't afford it anymore and the Terran dam breaks over and kills you.
The situation that you describe is nothing like templar vs biomine, and it's simply moronic to take that comparison seriously.
ALL THAT SAID, we really need to stop quoting Rain for saying "templar openings are dead", "Mine OP can't play templar anymore", etc., etc. He said something along those lines, but we don't need to take it as far as saying "Rain gave authority that playing templar openings is impossible, so it's absolutely true". And second, that may have just been Rain's view on the situation (who has generally preferred the more classic blink/colossus opening), and it doesn't necessarily give full authority to the statement that NO PROTOSS CAN OPEN TEMPLAR BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE IMBA IMBA.
I think robo -> templar is still viable, but the execution of it is much much harder than it was before. If this patch goes through, I don't think it will really affect the dynamic of this composition war all that much; it will still be difficult as hell to do, but it will probably still be viable with excellent control and the right circumstances.
Haven't we proven that colossus builds don't die to SCV pulls by now? Can we not put labels on things as "impossible" just because they're not necessarily popular? (And no, this does not include mech TvP or "The Avilo Build", which are simply nonsensical strategies).
Even Protoss pros admit that one of the big problems for terran in the ghost vs HT war is the fact that even after EMP, the HT's as an archon are vastly more useful than 2 ghosts auto attacking and maybe having 1 snipe of energy left vs a chargelot frontline.
That being said, snipe is great (and very, VERY hard to use well, but great). That is a different part of the dynamic that favors terran, the above only applies to EMP. I wish protoss would play TvP before dismissing all complaints because most crap terrans exaggerate. Most crap protoss exaggerate concerns too, as do zerg. Doesn't mean there were never any concerns for P or Z...I play PvT as a terran main and appreciate all the things protoss has to do to survive and to trick T but i still think late game is much harder for Terran. If protoss played TvP, they would understand how hard it is to snipe templar when its maybe 6+ ghosts vs 6+ ht without having the critical 2-4 storms land, microing and positioning rest of army, and keeping up on inferior production style / more attention-demanding harass and counter-harass. (microing bio harass on offense and defense vs warpin+target). SC is a game of attention and the problem in TvP is not the strength of the races on paper, but the fact that terrans need to focus more attention on each thing to be effective.
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote: Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
A stronger mid-game for Terran will result in a weaker late-game for Zerg, especially due to the nature of larva mechanics. Z has to invest more into mid-game to survive so late-game comes later, and/or in weaker numbers.
Overall, I don't know if widow-mine buff will be too much in TvP. The only test is whether Terrans can force Protoss to change their play enough to address the power of the mines, i.e. collosi play is mandatory (and therefore, predictable) etc. But blink micro counter mines as well, so there are options still for negating mine damage. This would require more actions from the Protoss, like, positioning detection, blink-micro if blink-stalkers are the choice, to negate the mines. To elaborate this point: A properly defended mine-drop will now kill 1 worker really really hard. Blink-stalkers disjointing the mines will mean that empty space will be hit really really hard. And when collosi hit the field, well that's that.
My prediction: Will make life hell for most Protoss on ladder; thus the huge outpouring of tears in this thread. Top (Mostly Korean, and Naniwa in top-form) Protoss will brush it off, since anti-mine play from Protoss was already well-established to be able to negate most damage. If that damage is higher, it means the mistakes will be punished harder.
At the top-most level, this change will be a smaller buff, since it seems designed to punish mistakes harder from P and Z. The only substantial change at top-most level TvP is the predictability of the Protoss reaction when forced to do something about mines blowing up everything. So, more collosi/blink play. But seriously, that is only fair, Terran is very predictable to Protoss as well.
PS. And with chargelots' guaranteed auto-hit, mine drag is definitely another possibility of addressing mines; maybe to be used in conjunction with other styles in late-game stages where all Protoss tech opens up.
PPS. I remember some Protoss complaining that stalkers getting into the range of mines were a bug and needed to be fixed, even when the mines were in a nerfed state. So yeah, expect lots more of those posts on TL and BNet forums.
Why do people say this?...
Getting attacked midgame does not translate into a weaker late game. It translates into a delayed late game. When the player that was attacked and survives into the late game gets the bases they need, and their upgrades all maxed out, then they're not at any disadvantage anymore. It doesn't matter how good the "midgame" of a different race is vs this other race, eventually the late game will become the maxed out stuff that it always is, unless they lose before that point.
Attacks do NOT create weaker late game. They create delayed late game. Practically everyone yarns about this "weaker late game" stuff but it's simply false.
The stalker "bug" is due to their unit intertia, they can be micro to stop outside of range and shoot the mine without danger, or you can a move and lose a stalker because you don't know about inertia, which is where a lot of complaints about this "bug" come from.
The problem with mines "blowing up everything", is that typically that's nearly impossible to do unless the protoss player is stupid. You can see mines buried without detection, you can split units instead of ball up, you can attack from a better angle. If there's some sort of mass mine drop play into Protoss army im not aware of, how did protoss deal with, and eventually kill off, the mass banes into protoss army play? Give me 3-3 siege tanks over WM for blowing up an entire protoss army any day. That's probably as difficult to pull off unless you force an encounter where you're in great positions and their army is split up because you created a bait base.. I did that last game and it worked pretty well.
As far as terran complaints about late game vs Z or P, the problem is lack of macro production buildings into the late game, not late game itself, per say.
ghost/mech should be your first line of attackers with bio follow up after the AoE is off the field. The two things that really wreak havoc with T are storm colossus, and maybe to a degree the ability of P to ball up and T no real way to actively punish it other than a concave and baiting an attack.
Mass marine bio even takes care of mass carriers as long as you keep HTs down. The design goal in brood war was to require the using of all "tiers" of units in a complimentary force. The macro mechanics make it too easy to build up pure T3+, but the costs of immortals, HTs, and DTs dont reflect this ease of resource acquirement. HT/DT supply should definitely be 3, not 2. Cost should also increase a bit. They did this with the tank, why not two of the power units of protoss? Immortal could stand to be a little more mineral costly. It's sitting at reaver cost but far more mobile and well protected.
On July 20 2014 04:19 darkness wrote: Tournaments aren't an exactly perfect tool to figure balance out either. Remember back in BW when Flash was winning? Terran OP? Remember the era of the 6 dragoons (protoss players). Protoss OP? Tournaments aren't perfect either. Remember the 5 hatch build in PvZ where your high templars were almost guaranteed to be sniped by muta stack? There was a discussion for a patch back then if I remember correctly.
That's a terrible example.
When the same guy is winning over and over and over again it's because he's a better player not because the race is imbalanced.
What we see with the current situation with Protoss and what we saw a lot during Infestor/Broodlord was not an instance of one champion of a race consistently winning, it was that the race itself was winning everything with different players winning at different times with no order to be found.
Look at the GSL right now. We've had 4 Protoss champions in a row and the only repeat Champion in this period was Zest who won two events only a couple weeks apart, the rest have all been different champions.
If we break down this year's premier events with Protoss champions it's the same pattern. Zest is the only repeat champion, the rest have all been split between other players.
How does that compare even the slightest bit to Flash dominating Brood War? It doesn't at all.
This is an excellent article. TL does so much work for the community. I just wish they had feedback from TLO and qxc. Those two always have such well thought out opinions. Maybe Grubby too.
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote: Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
A stronger mid-game for Terran will result in a weaker late-game for Zerg, especially due to the nature of larva mechanics. Z has to invest more into mid-game to survive so late-game comes later, and/or in weaker numbers.
Overall, I don't know if widow-mine buff will be too much in TvP. The only test is whether Terrans can force Protoss to change their play enough to address the power of the mines, i.e. collosi play is mandatory (and therefore, predictable) etc. But blink micro counter mines as well, so there are options still for negating mine damage. This would require more actions from the Protoss, like, positioning detection, blink-micro if blink-stalkers are the choice, to negate the mines. To elaborate this point: A properly defended mine-drop will now kill 1 worker really really hard. Blink-stalkers disjointing the mines will mean that empty space will be hit really really hard. And when collosi hit the field, well that's that.
My prediction: Will make life hell for most Protoss on ladder; thus the huge outpouring of tears in this thread. Top (Mostly Korean, and Naniwa in top-form) Protoss will brush it off, since anti-mine play from Protoss was already well-established to be able to negate most damage. If that damage is higher, it means the mistakes will be punished harder.
At the top-most level, this change will be a smaller buff, since it seems designed to punish mistakes harder from P and Z. The only substantial change at top-most level TvP is the predictability of the Protoss reaction when forced to do something about mines blowing up everything. So, more collosi/blink play. But seriously, that is only fair, Terran is very predictable to Protoss as well.
PS. And with chargelots' guaranteed auto-hit, mine drag is definitely another possibility of addressing mines; maybe to be used in conjunction with other styles in late-game stages where all Protoss tech opens up.
PPS. I remember some Protoss complaining that stalkers getting into the range of mines were a bug and needed to be fixed, even when the mines were in a nerfed state. So yeah, expect lots more of those posts on TL and BNet forums.
Why do people say this?...
Getting attacked midgame does not translate into a weaker late game. It translates into a delayed late game. When the player that was attacked and survives into the late game gets the bases they need, and their upgrades all maxed out, then they're not at any disadvantage anymore. It doesn't matter how good the "midgame" of a different race is vs this other race, eventually the late game will become the maxed out stuff that it always is, unless they lose before that point.
Attacks do NOT create weaker late game. They create delayed late game. Practically everyone yarns about this "weaker late game" stuff but it's simply false.
The stalker "bug" is due to their unit intertia, they can be micro to stop outside of range and shoot the mine without danger, or you can a move and lose a stalker because you don't know about inertia, which is where a lot of complaints about this "bug" come from.
The problem with mines "blowing up everything", is that typically that's nearly impossible to do unless the protoss player is stupid. You can see mines buried without detection, you can split units instead of ball up, you can attack from a better angle. If there's some sort of mass mine drop play into Protoss army im not aware of, how did protoss deal with, and eventually kill off, the mass banes into protoss army play? Give me 3-3 siege tanks over WM for blowing up an entire protoss army any day. That's probably as difficult to pull off unless you force an encounter where you're in great positions and their army is split up because you created a bait base.. I did that last game and it worked pretty well.
As far as terran complaints about late game vs Z or P, the problem is lack of macro production buildings into the late game, not late game itself, per say.
ghost/mech should be your first line of attackers with bio follow up after the AoE is off the field. The two things that really wreak havoc with T are storm colossus, and maybe to a degree the ability of P to ball up and T no real way to actively punish it other than a concave and baiting an attack.
Mass marine bio even takes care of mass carriers as long as you keep HTs down. The design goal in brood war was to require the using of all "tiers" of units in a complimentary force. The macro mechanics make it too easy to build up pure T3+, but the costs of immortals, HTs, and DTs dont reflect this ease of resource acquirement. HT/DT supply should definitely be 3, not 2. Cost should also increase a bit. They did this with the tank, why not two of the power units of protoss? Immortal could stand to be a little more mineral costly. It's sitting at reaver cost but far more mobile and well protected.
I do know of unit inertia, actually learned about it from the QQ about widow mines. You also re-iterate my point on how mines will be negated by more skilled players.
In TvZ, stronger Terran mid-game WILL result in weaker Zerg late-game. Every baneling forced is gas taken away from ultras and 3/3 upgrades. There's a reason 3/3 for Terran used to be considered a death sentence for the Z, until Z started to split and take better mid-game and then go for 3/3 before going for ultras.
Will it be too much? Unlikely, at least past the initial stages where Zergs who got too used to mines that actually threaten to punish mistakes severely. Against Protoss, mines can be used to punish chargelot spams that happen so frequently in late-game. Let's see how it plays out, but within the limited scope of creating the lowest impact on other matchups, Blizzard has to take conservative approach.
Delaying late-game tech is a way to weakening it, allowing the Terran enough room to properly react. While T lategame is 'weak', Terrans have the ability to respond to every threat in lategame. Ultras do die to marauders.
Major events aren't Premier events. Yes, in Major events (as defined there), zerg have 10 wins, protoss have 6, and terran have 1 in 2014. In Premier events, 11 protoss wins, 3 zerg, 3 terran.
Major events aren't Premier events. Yes, in Major events (as defined there), zerg have 10 wins, protoss have 6, and terran have 1 in 2014. In Premier events, 11 protoss wins, 3 zerg, 3 terran.
He was responding to my post which was specifically about major events as defined by Liquipedia.
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote: Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
A stronger mid-game for Terran will result in a weaker late-game for Zerg, especially due to the nature of larva mechanics. Z has to invest more into mid-game to survive so late-game comes later, and/or in weaker numbers.
Overall, I don't know if widow-mine buff will be too much in TvP. The only test is whether Terrans can force Protoss to change their play enough to address the power of the mines, i.e. collosi play is mandatory (and therefore, predictable) etc. But blink micro counter mines as well, so there are options still for negating mine damage. This would require more actions from the Protoss, like, positioning detection, blink-micro if blink-stalkers are the choice, to negate the mines. To elaborate this point: A properly defended mine-drop will now kill 1 worker really really hard. Blink-stalkers disjointing the mines will mean that empty space will be hit really really hard. And when collosi hit the field, well that's that.
My prediction: Will make life hell for most Protoss on ladder; thus the huge outpouring of tears in this thread. Top (Mostly Korean, and Naniwa in top-form) Protoss will brush it off, since anti-mine play from Protoss was already well-established to be able to negate most damage. If that damage is higher, it means the mistakes will be punished harder.
At the top-most level, this change will be a smaller buff, since it seems designed to punish mistakes harder from P and Z. The only substantial change at top-most level TvP is the predictability of the Protoss reaction when forced to do something about mines blowing up everything. So, more collosi/blink play. But seriously, that is only fair, Terran is very predictable to Protoss as well.
PS. And with chargelots' guaranteed auto-hit, mine drag is definitely another possibility of addressing mines; maybe to be used in conjunction with other styles in late-game stages where all Protoss tech opens up.
PPS. I remember some Protoss complaining that stalkers getting into the range of mines were a bug and needed to be fixed, even when the mines were in a nerfed state. So yeah, expect lots more of those posts on TL and BNet forums.
Why do people say this?...
Getting attacked midgame does not translate into a weaker late game. It translates into a delayed late game. When the player that was attacked and survives into the late game gets the bases they need, and their upgrades all maxed out, then they're not at any disadvantage anymore. It doesn't matter how good the "midgame" of a different race is vs this other race, eventually the late game will become the maxed out stuff that it always is, unless they lose before that point.
Attacks do NOT create weaker late game. They create delayed late game. Practically everyone yarns about this "weaker late game" stuff but it's simply false.
The stalker "bug" is due to their unit intertia, they can be micro to stop outside of range and shoot the mine without danger, or you can a move and lose a stalker because you don't know about inertia, which is where a lot of complaints about this "bug" come from.
The problem with mines "blowing up everything", is that typically that's nearly impossible to do unless the protoss player is stupid. You can see mines buried without detection, you can split units instead of ball up, you can attack from a better angle. If there's some sort of mass mine drop play into Protoss army im not aware of, how did protoss deal with, and eventually kill off, the mass banes into protoss army play? Give me 3-3 siege tanks over WM for blowing up an entire protoss army any day. That's probably as difficult to pull off unless you force an encounter where you're in great positions and their army is split up because you created a bait base.. I did that last game and it worked pretty well.
As far as terran complaints about late game vs Z or P, the problem is lack of macro production buildings into the late game, not late game itself, per say.
ghost/mech should be your first line of attackers with bio follow up after the AoE is off the field. The two things that really wreak havoc with T are storm colossus, and maybe to a degree the ability of P to ball up and T no real way to actively punish it other than a concave and baiting an attack.
Mass marine bio even takes care of mass carriers as long as you keep HTs down. The design goal in brood war was to require the using of all "tiers" of units in a complimentary force. The macro mechanics make it too easy to build up pure T3+, but the costs of immortals, HTs, and DTs dont reflect this ease of resource acquirement. HT/DT supply should definitely be 3, not 2. Cost should also increase a bit. They did this with the tank, why not two of the power units of protoss? Immortal could stand to be a little more mineral costly. It's sitting at reaver cost but far more mobile and well protected.
I do know of unit inertia, actually learned about it from the QQ about widow mines. You also re-iterate my point on how mines will be negated by more skilled players.
In TvZ, stronger Terran mid-game WILL result in weaker Zerg late-game. Every baneling forced is gas taken away from ultras and 3/3 upgrades. There's a reason 3/3 for Terran used to be considered a death sentence for the Z, until Z started to split and take better mid-game and then go for 3/3 before going for ultras.
Will it be too much? Unlikely, at least past the initial stages where Zergs who got too used to mines that actually threaten to punish mistakes severely. Against Protoss, mines can be used to punish chargelot spams that happen so frequently in late-game. Let's see how it plays out, but within the limited scope of creating the lowest impact on other matchups, Blizzard has to take conservative approach.
Delaying late-game tech is a way to weakening it, allowing the Terran enough room to properly react. While T lategame is 'weak', Terrans have the ability to respond to every threat in lategame. Ultras do die to marauders.
Point most T would make is a mine is not really a late game important unit. It's a mid game unit if playing Marine Tank Mine or MMMM. No buff in radius to the mine will help T deal with 3/5 Ultras with infestor support and a muta ball harassing all over the place.
A stronger mine only serves to help T to end the game during the mid game when Zerg is stuck on Muta/Ling/Bane. Which is more so what you are describing then it actually helping T late game. I could just as easily (though its' more drastic) say 2rax helps T late game because less ultras and 3/3 and it'd be the same point.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
Like - sick and tired of that Superiority complex of Terran players overall.. Some at least know that there takes "different type" of skill to play the other races, but those who never touched anything but Terran - are sado-mazo "babies" that would rather enjoy "Zerg tears" and getting raped by Protoss rather than have 2 equally difficult (but various in a different way) matchups w.t.f.
For those who think that Terran is the hardest - let me state the "easy" ones for once:
1 - Terran never has to have it's screen repositioned during a fight to macro 2 - Terran never has to have more bases than 2 (if playing agressive bio) - mules basically "forgive" A LOT of mistakes, let's be honest in that way.. 3 - Terran has very large edge at base-racing, so if you're not so much of a good player, you can still win by making it go to agressive early and force somehow the base-race scenario.. 4 - Terran can use almost every unit (even the cheap ones) in BOTH - battles and harass with them also (but it's kinda OK-ish, since Zerg can do that too, so it's more that Protoss has a specialist combat vs specialist harass units than other way round)
Now let me say why you think Protoss is easy:
1 - Protoss never has to micro (more like 20%) DURING a fight, more like - Protoss is the 80%/20% race, and Terran is 20%/80% race... In other words - Protoss PREPARES the battles before they even start, Terran simply can't do such a thing cause they don't depend on spellcasts.. Basically the Protoss micro happens BEFORE the engagements start - spread out Templar, spread out Obs and keep an eye to not get caught offguard, have WPrism nearby or near the opponent's base, spread out Colossi, position them far away from ledges so Vikings shouldn't shoot them down without having enough "space" for your Stalkers, e.t.c.
BUT - once the ENGAGEMENT happens - if Protoss PREDICTED and/or PREPARED well - it's like far easier than Terran would have to do during the fight.. The same against Zerg too - they have to think of a "route" where troups should go, as well as "predict places" where forcefields should be placed for the best outcome/result..
Now - as WHY we see Protoss sometimes actually loses - Protoss ALWAYS - lacks vision on the map.. Unless being Pigbaby with 8 observers out on the map or sth - they always lack that.. THAT, or simply - Terran opponent was a superior "sick Bomber" guy
Now - let me say WHY Terran think that it's only them that micro ?
3 - Most of "only playing Terran" think that the only type of Micro is the kiting and/or target-fire , but there are different types of micro: a - Sending injured units back b - Peeling the front "lane" apart c - Doing or preventing a surround d - Healing injured units when on low HP
Well TBH the target-fire-one is probably the HARDEST OF ALL cause requires precisions and mistakes of it backfire the MOST of them all.. If Terran requires only kiting to achieve what they should do - it's not as much of a biggie, but if they really have to kite and TARGET-FIRE (like that sicker baller Bomber does) - then that's a whole new "era" of difficulty - one misclick and half of your army dies
But that just proves how badly designed the race is TBH (not to say that I found quite a few IMO legit "flaws" in the Terran race's design and what it lacks)
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
Getting attacked midgame does not translate into a weaker late game. It translates into a delayed late game. When the player that was attacked and survives into the late game gets the bases they need, and their upgrades all maxed out, then they're not at any disadvantage anymore. It doesn't matter how good the "midgame" of a different race is vs this other race, eventually the late game will become the maxed out stuff that it always is, unless they lose before that point.
If zerg has a more difficult time spreading creep in midgame, his lategame is per definition weaker as well. There is no point in time where he can just suddenly get a good creep spread at time X in the late game.
What your ignoring is that late game TvZ isn't that bad in it self for terran. Terrans aren't cost-ineffective in late game TvZ (assuming solid micro). But ofc they are going to lose battles when opponent has 50% higher army value and terran has no bank. However, if you give terran a bank in that situation he still has a reasonable probability of winning. But when he doens't have a bank and opponent has 50% more army value, chances are that he came significantly behind during the midgame.
People are simply confusing lategame with midgame here due to the effect of the creep spread. Normally an opponent getting ahead in midgame can finish it off in this phase of the game, but this doens't apply to ZvT due to the defenders advantage of creep spread.
In TvP, it's quite different though as terran is strong during this phase of the game and there is no point in really buffing it any more as it just will result in Scv-timings being stronger. Though Widow Mine buffs probably is the exception here as it doens't really affect scv-pull timings that much.
As far as terran complaints about late game vs Z or P, the problem is lack of macro production buildings into the late game, not late game itself, per say.
That's one way of balancing it. I, however, much prefer the idea of a unit with a solid defenders advantage that requires micro to play with and against, but if correctly used, can be quite effective. Balancing the game out of some units being relatively cost-effective is IMO more interesting thant equalization production strenght in the late game.
Point most T would make is a mine is not really a late game important unit. It's a mid game unit if playing Marine Tank Mine or MMMM. No buff in radius to the mine will help T deal with 3/5 Ultras with infestor support and a muta ball harassing all over the place.
It's not a late game unit now cus it's just not good enough. However, better splash will definitely help vs a heavy Baneling/Ultra composition.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races, hence why (one of the reasons) they play Terran.. The problems emmerge when they find a "tough rock" to break or sth, otherwise they enjoy that "superiority illusion" of just killing the opponent with the first 2-3 unit types they can produce and stick all game long with that
On July 20 2014 04:25 Nerski wrote: Changes are not bad, but...
buffing the wm will make an already strong mid game T stronger...which really doesn't truly address T late game issues. Additionally will just make T even more likely to try to end the game in the mid game with lots of aggression. Which really isn't good for spectators or players because it takes away from having more dynamic options.
Time warp change really only serves to make toss all ins slightly less powerful. Which is probably good as I've seen what looks like a hold able situation for Z or T become a loss with the combination of FF and Time Warp. I can't see how it'd really change late game that much.
Thor change shouldn't do much for top T's be more so a buff to T's who lack sufficient multitasking speed to already do it.
Overall I doubt any change they do can really fix some issues without major changes in LoTV. They've had 2 iterations to balance and have ended up with a lot of turtle and all in play in both versions with stagnate meta games. They really need to bring their A game with LoTV to give all the match ups and races dynamic options in LoTV.
A stronger mid-game for Terran will result in a weaker late-game for Zerg, especially due to the nature of larva mechanics. Z has to invest more into mid-game to survive so late-game comes later, and/or in weaker numbers.
Overall, I don't know if widow-mine buff will be too much in TvP. The only test is whether Terrans can force Protoss to change their play enough to address the power of the mines, i.e. collosi play is mandatory (and therefore, predictable) etc. But blink micro counter mines as well, so there are options still for negating mine damage. This would require more actions from the Protoss, like, positioning detection, blink-micro if blink-stalkers are the choice, to negate the mines. To elaborate this point: A properly defended mine-drop will now kill 1 worker really really hard. Blink-stalkers disjointing the mines will mean that empty space will be hit really really hard. And when collosi hit the field, well that's that.
My prediction: Will make life hell for most Protoss on ladder; thus the huge outpouring of tears in this thread. Top (Mostly Korean, and Naniwa in top-form) Protoss will brush it off, since anti-mine play from Protoss was already well-established to be able to negate most damage. If that damage is higher, it means the mistakes will be punished harder.
At the top-most level, this change will be a smaller buff, since it seems designed to punish mistakes harder from P and Z. The only substantial change at top-most level TvP is the predictability of the Protoss reaction when forced to do something about mines blowing up everything. So, more collosi/blink play. But seriously, that is only fair, Terran is very predictable to Protoss as well.
PS. And with chargelots' guaranteed auto-hit, mine drag is definitely another possibility of addressing mines; maybe to be used in conjunction with other styles in late-game stages where all Protoss tech opens up.
PPS. I remember some Protoss complaining that stalkers getting into the range of mines were a bug and needed to be fixed, even when the mines were in a nerfed state. So yeah, expect lots more of those posts on TL and BNet forums.
Why do people say this?...
Getting attacked midgame does not translate into a weaker late game. It translates into a delayed late game. When the player that was attacked and survives into the late game gets the bases they need, and their upgrades all maxed out, then they're not at any disadvantage anymore. It doesn't matter how good the "midgame" of a different race is vs this other race, eventually the late game will become the maxed out stuff that it always is, unless they lose before that point.
Attacks do NOT create weaker late game. They create delayed late game. Practically everyone yarns about this "weaker late game" stuff but it's simply false.
The stalker "bug" is due to their unit intertia, they can be micro to stop outside of range and shoot the mine without danger, or you can a move and lose a stalker because you don't know about inertia, which is where a lot of complaints about this "bug" come from.
The problem with mines "blowing up everything", is that typically that's nearly impossible to do unless the protoss player is stupid. You can see mines buried without detection, you can split units instead of ball up, you can attack from a better angle. If there's some sort of mass mine drop play into Protoss army im not aware of, how did protoss deal with, and eventually kill off, the mass banes into protoss army play? Give me 3-3 siege tanks over WM for blowing up an entire protoss army any day. That's probably as difficult to pull off unless you force an encounter where you're in great positions and their army is split up because you created a bait base.. I did that last game and it worked pretty well.
As far as terran complaints about late game vs Z or P, the problem is lack of macro production buildings into the late game, not late game itself, per say.
ghost/mech should be your first line of attackers with bio follow up after the AoE is off the field. The two things that really wreak havoc with T are storm colossus, and maybe to a degree the ability of P to ball up and T no real way to actively punish it other than a concave and baiting an attack.
Mass marine bio even takes care of mass carriers as long as you keep HTs down. The design goal in brood war was to require the using of all "tiers" of units in a complimentary force. The macro mechanics make it too easy to build up pure T3+, but the costs of immortals, HTs, and DTs dont reflect this ease of resource acquirement. HT/DT supply should definitely be 3, not 2. Cost should also increase a bit. They did this with the tank, why not two of the power units of protoss? Immortal could stand to be a little more mineral costly. It's sitting at reaver cost but far more mobile and well protected.
I do know of unit inertia, actually learned about it from the QQ about widow mines. You also re-iterate my point on how mines will be negated by more skilled players.
In TvZ, stronger Terran mid-game WILL result in weaker Zerg late-game. Every baneling forced is gas taken away from ultras and 3/3 upgrades. There's a reason 3/3 for Terran used to be considered a death sentence for the Z, until Z started to split and take better mid-game and then go for 3/3 before going for ultras.
Will it be too much? Unlikely, at least past the initial stages where Zergs who got too used to mines that actually threaten to punish mistakes severely. Against Protoss, mines can be used to punish chargelot spams that happen so frequently in late-game. Let's see how it plays out, but within the limited scope of creating the lowest impact on other matchups, Blizzard has to take conservative approach.
Delaying late-game tech is a way to weakening it, allowing the Terran enough room to properly react. While T lategame is 'weak', Terrans have the ability to respond to every threat in lategame. Ultras do die to marauders.
Point most T would make is a mine is not really a late game important unit. It's a mid game unit if playing Marine Tank Mine or MMMM. No buff in radius to the mine will help T deal with 3/5 Ultras with infestor support and a muta ball harassing all over the place.
A stronger mine only serves to help T to end the game during the mid game when Zerg is stuck on Muta/Ling/Bane. Which is more so what you are describing then it actually helping T late game. I could just as easily (though its' more drastic) say 2rax helps T late game because less ultras and 3/3 and it'd be the same point.
2 rax is not strong enough if its scouted, and scouting it isn't very hard. So the logic is fine even in that case. It has miniscule impact because of it's miniscule ability to force a change in Zerg playstyle.
Collosi has a much more drastic reaction required from Terrans, i.e. forced into building more vikings, and that does take a toll on the medivac count. Or turrets being forced by mutalisks, and banelings being forced by marines.
Against Zerg, the impact of stronger mines will force more larva and resources being spent into replenishing the greater losses. That will directly impact the timing and the amount of Zerg lategame units. I would be really happy even if it means that when I face an ultra switch composed of 2 ultras rather than 8 ultras.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races, hence why (one of the reasons) they play Terran.. The problems emmerge when they find a "tough rock" to break or sth, otherwise they enjoy that "superiority illusion" of just killing the opponent with the first 2-3 unit types they can produce and stick with that all game long
In midgame? Yeh, surely terran has easier access to harass. But that doesn't make the harass easy in it self since all forms of terran harass are very microintensive.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races
You're so blinded by your own bias, you can't even see how other people might think differently from you.
Newsflash: plenty of people who are dissatisfied with Protoss and Zerg design want Protoss and Zerg to scale better with mechanical skill. You know what that inherently means? Better harassment potential. We don't want Terran to be more like Protoss. We want Protoss to be more like Terran.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races, hence why (one of the reasons) they play Terran.. The problems emmerge when they find a "tough rock" to break or sth, otherwise they enjoy that "superiority illusion" of just killing the opponent with the first 2-3 unit types they can produce and stick all game long with that
Terran harass took a big hit with Nexus Overcharge and improvements to Z queens and spore evochamber-requirement removal (and Z players learning about the magic of creep a few years into the game). Observer build speed has also been increased tremendously; used to great effect by Pigbaby in dismantling Taeja's midgame.
Seriously, this is some "inferiority illusion" about harass with WoL-shades still on.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races, hence why (one of the reasons) they play Terran.. The problems emmerge when they find a "tough rock" to break or sth, otherwise they enjoy that "superiority illusion" of just killing the opponent with the first 2-3 unit types they can produce and stick all game long with that
Terran harass took a big hit with Nexus Overcharge and improvements to Z queens and spore evochamber-requirement removal (and Z players learning about the magic of creep a few years into the game). Observer build speed has also been increased tremendously; used to great effect by Pigbaby in dismantling Taeja's midgame.
Seriously, this is some "inferiority illusion" about harass with WoL-shades still on.
Not really becasue in the same proces Speed-medivacs were introduced which more than compensated for the other races buffs.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races
You're so blinded by your own bias, you can't even see how other people might think differently from you.
Newsflash: plenty of people who are dissatisfied with Protoss and Zerg design want Protoss and Zerg to scale better with mechanical skill. You know what that inherently means? Better harassment potential. We don't want Terran to be more like Protoss. We want Protoss to be more like Terran.
Au contraire mon capitaine - why don't people want to change Protoss, but would rather buff mech ?
If Terran had (again my point - they lack a tank-guarding unit except mass Raven that is waaaay more expensive and waaaay after them, lol)
Timewarp on some unit, or even better Blinding cloud instead of those "HSM" or whatever, or even better - give the Banshee the blinding cloud ability instead of cloak and give it a shot - Terran wouldn't whine at all, cause you'd actually be able to still harass, but also guard your tanks (and harass in a lighter fashion rather than go full-gay-vs-the-Zerg-opponent-mode )..
And the another reason why people don't see Terran problem is that they can't "acknowledge" the fact that bio-tank can be still useful enough if their support units can "force the opponent back" rather than add up the kill-count and/or do more fireworks.. Just give the Banshee or the Raven a blinding cloud ability and test it - you'll actually see what Terran really lacks..
In other words - Terran is just an "overkill" race - everything is designed for firepower, if their support units were focused on forcing the opponent back as opposed to "add to the kills" (that Tanks and/or Marines would have had either anyway) - then Terran wouldn't have such big engagement problems
And on the other side - probably the only thing that should be changed from Protoss is the Colossus (cause it does all the "trick" all by itself) overall..
And partially it's a direct Mr. Kim himself fault - Terran would still work just as it does if WMs didn't kill their targets but just stun them, only the differences are the following 2:
1 - There wouldn't be much "fireworks", so mines woudln't be enough "fun to watch", and 2 - instead of "rushing each other's backs now" and discuss what the actual splash radius would be adequate, we'd probably discuss a stun duration of the stun and both sides agree somewhat of a more ..
So that's another problem - things should be "dramatic", things should blow up, otherwise why would we watch ?
But yes - my point is - Tanks and Marines are already strong enough "core units" so they need their "support units" to control the enemy flow rate and make them retreat partially or after a while rather than kill more
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races
You're so blinded by your own bias, you can't even see how other people might think differently from you.
Newsflash: plenty of people who are dissatisfied with Protoss and Zerg design want Protoss and Zerg to scale better with mechanical skill. You know what that inherently means? Better harassment potential. We don't want Terran to be more like Protoss. We want Protoss to be more like Terran.
Au contraire mon capitaine - why don't people want to change Protoss, but would rather buff mech ?
If Terran had (again my point - they lack a tank-guarding unit except mass Raven that is waaaay more expensive and waaaay after them, lol)
Timewarp on some unit, or even better Blinding cloud instead of those "HSM" or whatever, or even better - give the Banshee the blinding cloud ability instead of cloak and give it a shot - Terran wouldn't whine at all, cause you'd actually be able to still harass, but also guard your tanks (and harass in a lighter fashion rather than go full-gay-vs-the-Zerg-opponent-mode )..
And the another reason why people don't see Terran problem is that they can't "acknowledge" the fact that bio-tank can be still useful enough if their support units can "force the opponent back" rather than add up the kill-count and/or do more fireworks.. Just give the Banshee or the Raven a blinding cloud ability and test it - you'll actually see what Terran really lacks..
In other words - Terran is just an "overkill" race - everything is designed for firepower, if their support units were focused on forcing the opponent back as opposed to "add to the kills" (that Tanks and/or Marines would have had either anyway) - then Terran wouldn't have such big engagement problems
I agree with what you're saying now, I just don't know why you had to start it off with "Terrans will never acknowledge that harassment is easier for them!" Terrans will gladly acknowledge it, that's why we don't want more midgame buffs. Because the midgame (aka the time when they harass) is already plenty strong, and instead of more harassment options we want a strong standard game that doesn't rely on taking huge risks every 30 seconds.
I'd love to see more positional support spells/mechanics experimented with. That could go a long way to making mech work. Right now mech functions only as a deathball, and that's not "SC mech." That's just Factory units. Having Factory units be viable period is a good step one (we barely have that in TvZ and we don't have it in TvP), having them actually function as "SC mech" has to be the longterm plan. I have no easy solutions for achieving that without being able to test them all out, but stronger support spells could absolutely be the key.
And on the other side - probably the only thing that should be changed from Protoss is the Colossus (cause it does all the "trick" all by itself) overall..
Here I disagree very strongly. MOST, if not all, of the following need huge changes: Immortal, Colossus, Dark Templar, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Carrier, MSC, Oracle.
Here I disagree very strongly. MOST, if not all, of the following need huge changes: Immortal, Colossus, Dark Templar, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Carrier, MSC, Oracle.
How so? The colossus is a generic and boring catch-all unit that basically always works and doesn't need almost any micro. I can an argument for changing the immortal for PvT mech, but then again other matchup yadda yadda.
I don't see how void rays, dark templar or archons are problematic, especially not when you have the sheer boredom of the colossus when we could have, say, a reaver instead of it.
@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)
Here I disagree very strongly. MOST, if not all, of the following need huge changes: Immortal, Colossus, Dark Templar, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Carrier, MSC, Oracle.
How so? The colossus is a generic and boring catch-all unit that basically always works and doesn't need almost any micro. I can an argument for changing the immortal for PvT mech, but then again other matchup yadda yadda.
I don't see how void rays, dark templar or archons are problematic, especially not when you have the sheer boredom of the colossus when we could have, say, a reaver instead of it.
no more than 2 or 3 of the players gave an objective respnse, with some being completely biased. I expected pros to be more mature but I guess they are all really just a bunch of kids playing PC games...
as for the proposed patch: can't see how the thor change can hurt, so I guess it's just fine. thors are most efficient firing air units in most scenarios, so that's really a logical change, and since the unit itself doesn't really change at all i can't see how it would affect the balance. that said, if blizz is helping terrans by making it easier to micro against zerg, why not change banelings so they will prioritize light units? thors are just as useless against lings as banelings are against mauraders...
as for the WM buff, I am really doubtful: we've been there, haven't we? WM were nerfed because there were too many instances in which a single shot took out a dozen banelings or so. while very needed in order to help terrans in the late game against mass banelings, it can prove to be too hard for zerg to deal with in the early and mid game. I can think of 2 possible solutions for this: one is to make the WM buff available through an upgrade, either from the armory or a techlab attached to a factory (or maybe even merging it with tunneling claws?). the other is somewhat farfetched and might not even be viable, but maybe ghost's EMP can have an added effect against banelings? slow them down or something? I know it's very vauge but ghost ARE underused in TvZ...
lastly, the time warp nerf seems a bit radical: shortening it's length defenaitly sounds great, but why not try a 33% or 50% nerf first? remember that game speed is faster then real time. I think blizz should aim for around 10 second in real time, making it 15 second or so in game time?
Here I disagree very strongly. MOST, if not all, of the following need huge changes: Immortal, Colossus, Dark Templar, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Carrier, MSC, Oracle.
How so? The colossus is a generic and boring catch-all unit that basically always works and doesn't need almost any micro. I can an argument for changing the immortal for PvT mech, but then again other matchup yadda yadda.
I don't see how void rays, dark templar or archons are problematic, especially not when you have the sheer boredom of the colossus when we could have, say, a reaver instead of it.
I feel like "always works and doesn't need almost any micro" is true for most of the units on that list, though. There are obviously exceptions. PartinG's soul train can convince anybody that the Immortal is actually the most microable unit in the game. But it shouldn't take the world's best players to make a unit look microable.
I'm not saying Colossus isn't the biggest problem. It is, both because it's boring, and because it actively promotes Protoss deathball play (which makes the entire MU boring when it's in vogue). But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Compare Void Rays and Vikings. Vikings can stutter step in the air thanks to their range, which means great players can do things with them that bad players can't. (Watch Flash vs Bbyong g1 from SanDisk, Bbyong's Viking micro almost saved him against Flash's BC transition!) Void Rays... just attack stuff. Vikings' ability to land on the ground provides so much more micro potential, which is sadly underutilized because of the meta... but the potential is there, ie. flying in with Vikings to snipe Colossi, then landing them to get away from the Protoss's Phoenixes. Then transforming them the second they're in range of bio back-up to get as much damage as possible on the Phoenix. We don't see it happen, but we could. What could we ever see with a Void Ray that we haven't already? Or an Archon, or an Immortal, or a DT? Nothing.
I'm all in favor of making Protoss units more high-risk-high-reward all across the board. For instance, give Stalkers less HP but a faster cooldown on Blink. For mediocre Protoss, this will be a huge nerf. They don't have the APM to individually Blink wounded Stalkers back to safety without losing DPS. Good - being a mediocre Protoss is easy enough as we can see from the ladder. For a very, very good Protoss, this will be a huge buff, because his APM will allow him to do that, and also make the Stalker capable of doing things it previously wasn't because it'll be even more maneuverable. Also good - we want the best Protoss players to be producing those "oh my god!!!!" moments in every game they play, and you know PartinG and Zest would do just that. Now this change might be UP, it might be OP, but we can't know without trying. If I was on the SC2 design team, my #1 priority for LOTV would be trying something like that for every single Protoss unit.
Zerg is so fundamentally different from T/P that it's a tougher nut to crack, and this post is long enough already, so I'll stop here.
Here I disagree very strongly. MOST, if not all, of the following need huge changes: Immortal, Colossus, Dark Templar, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Carrier, MSC, Oracle.
How so? The colossus is a generic and boring catch-all unit that basically always works and doesn't need almost any micro. I can an argument for changing the immortal for PvT mech, but then again other matchup yadda yadda.
I don't see how void rays, dark templar or archons are problematic, especially not when you have the sheer boredom of the colossus when we could have, say, a reaver instead of it.
Those units are really microless as well.
Sure but they arent the units that the entire race bases its midgame around.
Here I disagree very strongly. MOST, if not all, of the following need huge changes: Immortal, Colossus, Dark Templar, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Carrier, MSC, Oracle.
How so? The colossus is a generic and boring catch-all unit that basically always works and doesn't need almost any micro. I can an argument for changing the immortal for PvT mech, but then again other matchup yadda yadda.
I don't see how void rays, dark templar or archons are problematic, especially not when you have the sheer boredom of the colossus when we could have, say, a reaver instead of it.
Those units are really microless as well.
Their impact is not comparable though. The colossus really defines all of the protoss mid game and most of the late game. Its only real contender for most boring and uninspired unit in the game is probably the corruptor, but at least that unit is more an auxiliary.
As has been pointed out, compare the wow-factor of top tier reaver play to top tier colossus play. I don't know, I think there's more that can, and should be done to promote more danger/reward and higher skill requirement for the project of basic protoss army control. Terran micro and mechanical requirements really should be the gold standard we hold the other two races to, if we could land Sc2 as a whole in that ball park, we could have something amazing.
Here I disagree very strongly. MOST, if not all, of the following need huge changes: Immortal, Colossus, Dark Templar, Archon, Void Ray, Tempest, Carrier, MSC, Oracle.
How so? The colossus is a generic and boring catch-all unit that basically always works and doesn't need almost any micro. I can an argument for changing the immortal for PvT mech, but then again other matchup yadda yadda.
I don't see how void rays, dark templar or archons are problematic, especially not when you have the sheer boredom of the colossus when we could have, say, a reaver instead of it.
Those units are really microless as well.
Sure but they arent the units that the entire race bases its midgame around.
I think that's a very fair point, but the problem is Blizzard doesn't seem to like doing content patches midway through an expansion... (even if they didn't add much content in the expansion...) and we only have one expansion left. That means there isn't time to do an expansion on just Protoss midgame by changing Colossus... because what if the change is good but not good enough? Then we're still stuck pretty much in the same place where we've been for 4 years.
They need to go into this thinking this is their one chance to make everything in this game work.
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races
You're so blinded by your own bias, you can't even see how other people might think differently from you.
Newsflash: plenty of people who are dissatisfied with Protoss and Zerg design want Protoss and Zerg to scale better with mechanical skill. You know what that inherently means? Better harassment potential. We don't want Terran to be more like Protoss. We want Protoss to be more like Terran.
Au contraire mon capitaine - why don't people want to change Protoss, but would rather buff mech ?
If Terran had (again my point - they lack a tank-guarding unit except mass Raven that is waaaay more expensive and waaaay after them, lol)
Timewarp on some unit, or even better Blinding cloud instead of those "HSM" or whatever, or even better - give the Banshee the blinding cloud ability instead of cloak and give it a shot - Terran wouldn't whine at all, cause you'd actually be able to still harass, but also guard your tanks (and harass in a lighter fashion rather than go full-gay-vs-the-Zerg-opponent-mode )..
And the another reason why people don't see Terran problem is that they can't "acknowledge" the fact that bio-tank can be still useful enough if their support units can "force the opponent back" rather than add up the kill-count and/or do more fireworks.. Just give the Banshee or the Raven a blinding cloud ability and test it - you'll actually see what Terran really lacks..
In other words - Terran is just an "overkill" race - everything is designed for firepower, if their support units were focused on forcing the opponent back as opposed to "add to the kills" (that Tanks and/or Marines would have had either anyway) - then Terran wouldn't have such big engagement problems
And on the other side - probably the only thing that should be changed from Protoss is the Colossus (cause it does all the "trick" all by itself) overall..
And partially it's a direct Mr. Kim himself fault - Terran would still work just as it does if WMs didn't kill their targets but just stun them, only the differences are the following 2:
1 - There wouldn't be much "fireworks", so mines woudln't be enough "fun to watch", and 2 - instead of "rushing each other's backs now" and discuss what the actual splash radius would be adequate, we'd probably discuss a stun duration of the stun and both sides agree somewhat of a more ..
So that's another problem - things should be "dramatic", things should blow up, otherwise why would we watch ?
But yes - my point is - Tanks and Marines are already strong enough "core units" so they need their "support units" to control the enemy flow rate and make them retreat partially or after a while rather than kill more
Hello, i've seen you in a few threads and you use quotation marks ("these") a lot. This makes it really hard to easily read your post. Quotation marks are usually used to quote someone/something or imply sarcasm (yes of course protoss is "balanced", for example.).
For example, you said "there wouldn't be too much "fireworks",". The quotation marks (in my opinion) don't add anything to the sentence. The word fireworks didn't need to be accentuated, is not sarcasm and it is not a quote. The same with "Terran is just an "overkill" race". Overkill on its own perfectly conveys the meaning of the word and the sentence.
Because of all those quotation marks it becomes really hard to read your posts, I usually skip them because it just takes too much energy to read it.
But all in all, that is just my opinion. If I am the only one that thinks this, please disregard everything I said .
Woa. First match of SKT1 vs CJ proleague Playoff 2014.
Terran got completely destroyed by zerg. Korean zerg is reaally strong.
Zerg goes pool first, 6 ling cancels CC on lowground - Reaper will leave base, cancel base or always 2nd reaper + Lots of micro vs A-move lings - Hellion harass delayed, base delayed
From the book of Protoss (stay on two base to cancel drops): Zerg gets extra Queens and some Roaches and stays on 2 base while upgrading carapace and melee - Hellions now do zero damage, even when dropped - Pre-stim Harassment is not viable - Creepspread can not be controlled by hellions - After 1-1 finished for lings, time to dump the " 15 safety roaches" into the terran killing workers - Terran holds (expected) by losing SCVs and a lot of army alike
Zerg gets base #3 and Drone Explosion. - Terran has 2 bases. now 70 vs 37. Workers - Upgrades even - Spire goes down - Terran gets 3rd, not defended, always has to pull workers against incoming ling/bling
Zerg gets 15+ Mutas - Drops shut down - 4th base for zerg..uncontested - Creep out of control - Terran on the maP? Snipe Ebays/workers with muta
Zerg gets a 17 minute Baneling speed -morphs 80 baneling from 4 base eco. -Crushes army and all CCs with pure baneling afterward
Terran needs fucking options to alter the Reaperexpand into fast third into double upgrade Bio/Mine game that is now understood by zerg and completly destroyed. Bio Mine is so weak, there is not even the need for a "traditional" hots Ultra transition, terran just gets STOMPED by banes, or the zerg macro was too bad so he loses.
Mines are stupid, remove the damage on friendly units (Or add baneling/Colossus AoE on friendly). Mines are a random element that hurts Terran a lot. HMS, NUKE, EMP, TANK already all Terran AoE hurts Terran. Why is it not for banes?
On July 20 2014 01:32 LSN wrote: Now stick to the topic and this is what the pros think/said about the new balance patches and not about you naruto.
I quote this again: "no person that is not playing Terran, not even Blizzard, will ever agree that Terran players (especially the very top) are a lot better than their Protoss/Zerg counterparts"
I say that this is wrong and the top 5 of each race are equally skilled. Easy as this. I dont even know why you are that offended Naruto and try to attack me, it is just bullshit what happy says there.
And how exactly can you prove that at any given time, the top5 players from each race are equally skilled?
offracing, ez
That would be terrible, since you macro will suffer when you offrace, no matter from which race to which race your going to switch.
The way i see things atm is that terran needs small buff (i'd love to see the tank buff since it's my favorite unit in sc2 but ohh well). PvZ has a nice balance atm and they both dominate terrans at current stage so nerfing either of them would be mistake atm. Maybe later yes, but atm only a terran buff is the right correction to be made.
My point is - Terrans will never admit that they have an easier time harassing than the other 2 races
You're so blinded by your own bias, you can't even see how other people might think differently from you.
Newsflash: plenty of people who are dissatisfied with Protoss and Zerg design want Protoss and Zerg to scale better with mechanical skill. You know what that inherently means? Better harassment potential. We don't want Terran to be more like Protoss. We want Protoss to be more like Terran.
Au contraire mon capitaine - why don't people want to change Protoss, but would rather buff mech ?
If Terran had (again my point - they lack a tank-guarding unit except mass Raven that is waaaay more expensive and waaaay after them, lol)
Timewarp on some unit, or even better Blinding cloud instead of those "HSM" or whatever, or even better - give the Banshee the blinding cloud ability instead of cloak and give it a shot - Terran wouldn't whine at all, cause you'd actually be able to still harass, but also guard your tanks (and harass in a lighter fashion rather than go full-gay-vs-the-Zerg-opponent-mode )..
And the another reason why people don't see Terran problem is that they can't "acknowledge" the fact that bio-tank can be still useful enough if their support units can "force the opponent back" rather than add up the kill-count and/or do more fireworks.. Just give the Banshee or the Raven a blinding cloud ability and test it - you'll actually see what Terran really lacks..
In other words - Terran is just an "overkill" race - everything is designed for firepower, if their support units were focused on forcing the opponent back as opposed to "add to the kills" (that Tanks and/or Marines would have had either anyway) - then Terran wouldn't have such big engagement problems
And on the other side - probably the only thing that should be changed from Protoss is the Colossus (cause it does all the "trick" all by itself) overall..
And partially it's a direct Mr. Kim himself fault - Terran would still work just as it does if WMs didn't kill their targets but just stun them, only the differences are the following 2:
1 - There wouldn't be much "fireworks", so mines woudln't be enough "fun to watch", and 2 - instead of "rushing each other's backs now" and discuss what the actual splash radius would be adequate, we'd probably discuss a stun duration of the stun and both sides agree somewhat of a more ..
So that's another problem - things should be "dramatic", things should blow up, otherwise why would we watch ?
But yes - my point is - Tanks and Marines are already strong enough "core units" so they need their "support units" to control the enemy flow rate and make them retreat partially or after a while rather than kill more
Hello, i've seen you in a few threads and you use quotation marks ("these") a lot. This makes it really hard to easily read your post. Quotation marks are usually used to quote someone/something or imply sarcasm (yes of course protoss is "balanced", for example.).
For example, you said "there wouldn't be too much "fireworks",". The quotation marks (in my opinion) don't add anything to the sentence. The word fireworks didn't need to be accentuated, is not sarcasm and it is not a quote. The same with "Terran is just an "overkill" race". Overkill on its own perfectly conveys the meaning of the word and the sentence.
Because of all those quotation marks it becomes really hard to read your posts, I usually skip them because it just takes too much energy to read it.
But all in all, that is just my opinion. If I am the only one that thinks this, please disregard everything I said .
Thx man, will see if I can and how much I can improve regarding that matter..
Wish I knew why I used those, usually either irony or abstraction so for example you wouldn't think of "HSM" as HSM exact, but all the spells working in a same/similar fashion.. Same as the capped words (I'm sorry it looks like shouting, and that's the world-wide accepted trend overall, but I was using to underline the important points/keywords in a post)
So will see what I can do regarding those, after all I guess reading easier is more important overall
Isn't it weird how these all these "buffs" to hellbats and mines are actually just returning HotS to its original release setup? Its almost like HotS was balanced before all the nerfs.
On July 21 2014 02:28 Foreverkul wrote: Isn't it weird how these all these "buffs" to hellbats and mines are actually just returning HotS to its original release setup? Its almost like HotS was balanced before all the nerfs.
I rather feel that Blizzard is trying to avoid the fail of HotS units, just "balance" hots units so that everyone thinks hots units are great additions to sc2.
On July 21 2014 02:28 Foreverkul wrote: Isn't it weird how these all these "buffs" to hellbats and mines are actually just returning HotS to its original release setup? Its almost like HotS was balanced before all the nerfs.
Well that really does not apply to Z and P. Personally i don´t like the way they are going around balancing the game. HB buffs are especially terrible as the unit is a stupid a-move unit like the colossus and WM buff encourages only one way to play terran.
On July 21 2014 02:28 Foreverkul wrote: Isn't it weird how these all these "buffs" to hellbats and mines are actually just returning HotS to its original release setup? Its almost like HotS was balanced before all the nerfs.
Well that really does not apply to Z and P. Personally i don´t like the way they are going around balancing the game. HB buffs are especially terrible as the unit is a stupid a-move unit like the colossus and WM buff encourages only one way to play terran.
At least hellbats encourage some cute drop play. But i agree that blizzard was too heavy handed on patching release HOTS.
On July 21 2014 02:28 Foreverkul wrote: Isn't it weird how these all these "buffs" to hellbats and mines are actually just returning HotS to its original release setup? Its almost like HotS was balanced before all the nerfs.
Well that really does not apply to Z and P. Personally i don´t like the way they are going around balancing the game. HB buffs are especially terrible as the unit is a stupid a-move unit like the colossus and WM buff encourages only one way to play terran.
At least hellbats encourage some cute drop play. But i agree that blizzard was too heavy handed on patching release HOTS.
It's really hard to give terrans an option like pre-nerf BF bats in the context of the marine. Anything that comes out early enough to be a serious threat while zergs are still building their basic economy is always going to have to be balanced on a razor's edge. Any serious disruption or delay in the zerg eco will likely result in dying to a massive bio push a few minutes later.
The marine is just such a strong unit and requires such gas intensive composition to counter when massed, that something like the old BF bats just made it stupidly hard for zerg to avoid taking enough damage that the followup bio parade push wouldn't kill them, while at the same time getting enough eco to build the combination of banes and mutas needed to fight mass marine in the mid game. I don't know how to solve this with anything else than a straight up nerf to marines and then working from there. Watching a 50 mineral unit mow down protoss gateway units and zerg t1-2 makes it rather hard to find avenues to improve terran, without just giving them a massive timing window where the opponent simply doesn't have the higher tier units you need to deal with large numbers of marines.
I think the exceptional power of the marine is actually holding terran back, the presence of a highly mobile, versatile, high DPS and, for its cost, very durable tier 1 unit just puts everything else in the position of having to exist around that unit, rather than alongside it. If the marine could be more of part of the puzzle rather than the one-size-fits-all solution to anything that doesn't do huge AOE damage, maybe the terran tech tree could be more fleshed out, and actually incentivize teching up.
On July 21 2014 02:28 Foreverkul wrote: Isn't it weird how these all these "buffs" to hellbats and mines are actually just returning HotS to its original release setup? Its almost like HotS was balanced before all the nerfs.
Well that really does not apply to Z and P. Personally i don´t like the way they are going around balancing the game. HB buffs are especially terrible as the unit is a stupid a-move unit like the colossus and WM buff encourages only one way to play terran.
At least hellbats encourage some cute drop play. But i agree that blizzard was too heavy handed on patching release HOTS.
It's really hard to give terrans an option like pre-nerf BF bats in the context of the marine. Anything that comes out early enough to be a serious threat while zergs are still building their basic economy is always going to have to be balanced on a razor's edge.
The marine is just such a strong unit and requires such gas intensive composition to counter when massed, that something like the old BF bats just made it stupidly hard for zerg to avoid taking enough damage that the followup bio parade push wouldn't kill them, while at the same time getting enough eco to build the combination of banes and mutas needed to fight mass marine in the mid game. I don't know how to solve this with anything else than a straight up nerf to marines and then working from there. Watching a 50 mineral unit mow down protoss gateway units and zerg t1-2 makes it rather hard to find avenues to improve terran, without just giving them a massive timing window where the opponent simply doesn't have the higher tier units you need to deal with large numbers of marines.
I think the exceptional power of the marine is actually holding terran back, the presence of a highly mobile, versatile, high DPS and, for its cost, very durable tier 1 unit just puts everything else in the position of having to exist around that unit, rather than alongside it.
Couldn't agree more. I'm Terran, and I love my marines. But they break the race. Am hoping for some kind of marine rework along with a ton of other tech becoming better for Terran in LotV.
On July 21 2014 02:28 Foreverkul wrote: Isn't it weird how these all these "buffs" to hellbats and mines are actually just returning HotS to its original release setup? Its almost like HotS was balanced before all the nerfs.
Well that really does not apply to Z and P. Personally i don´t like the way they are going around balancing the game. HB buffs are especially terrible as the unit is a stupid a-move unit like the colossus and WM buff encourages only one way to play terran.
At least hellbats encourage some cute drop play. But i agree that blizzard was too heavy handed on patching release HOTS.
It's really hard to give terrans an option like pre-nerf BF bats in the context of the marine. Anything that comes out early enough to be a serious threat while zergs are still building their basic economy is always going to have to be balanced on a razor's edge. Any serious disruption or delay in the zerg eco will likely result in dying to a massive bio push a few minutes later.
The marine is just such a strong unit and requires such gas intensive composition to counter when massed, that something like the old BF bats just made it stupidly hard for zerg to avoid taking enough damage that the followup bio parade push wouldn't kill them, while at the same time getting enough eco to build the combination of banes and mutas needed to fight mass marine in the mid game. I don't know how to solve this with anything else than a straight up nerf to marines and then working from there. Watching a 50 mineral unit mow down protoss gateway units and zerg t1-2 makes it rather hard to find avenues to improve terran, without just giving them a massive timing window where the opponent simply doesn't have the higher tier units you need to deal with large numbers of marines.
I think the exceptional power of the marine is actually holding terran back, the presence of a highly mobile, versatile, high DPS and, for its cost, very durable tier 1 unit just puts everything else in the position of having to exist around that unit, rather than alongside it. If the marine could be more of part of the puzzle rather than the one-size-fits-all solution to anything that doesn't do huge AOE damage, maybe the terran tech tree could be more fleshed out, and actually incentivize teching up.
That would require an entire rework of the race, David Kim can't mess around with unused units without breaking the game, imagine what would happen if he touched the marine. Also i said Blizz was heavy handed in patching release HOTS but i believe the hellbat nerf was on the spot. Perhaps blue flame should be shorter/less expensive now because of it tho.
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.
What about moving some bio and mech requirements to new buildings like the academy or science facility? And make reactors more expensive (like 100/100 each)?
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)
On July 21 2014 23:59 gTank wrote: What about moving some bio and mech requirements to new buildings like the academy or science facility? And make reactors more expensive (like 100/100 each)?
What would that achieve? Terran's setup costs are already a little higher (dependend on the particular setup of course).
Also more expensive reactors than they are now would just lead to people not using them at all and instead building double the amount of production facilities, especially in the case of barracks.
As for Terran I just hope for a Raven rework in LotV in order that the Raven will have a better synergy with mech, perhaps it could form the missing link to make it viable against Protoss?
For now, in HotS, I hope it is still possible to do something about TvP late game. I feel Blizzard kept in the +shield damage with the widow mine because they feel Protoss is already slightly favoured in TvP, so they don't feel the urge to (un)nerf the mine in order to make templar play possible for example which is actually of importance to enliven the matchup. I am not quite sure how to do it though some people argue it is the impossibility to punish greedy plays from Protoss.
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? Terran can lose the game in the early stages even when a wall was made.
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.
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.
Would terran need more changes to accommodate any potential nerfs to the marine? Yes. Is it going to be easy or straightforward? Likely not. Is it an avenue worth exploring? I think so.
For now, in HotS, I hope it is still possible to do something about TvP late game. I feel Blizzard kept in the +shield damage with the widow mine because they feel Protoss is already slightly favoured in TvP, so they don't feel the urge to (un)nerf the mine in order to make templar play possible for example which is actually of importance to enliven the matchup. I am not quite sure how to do it though some people argue it is the impossibility to punish greedy plays from Protoss.
That's more an issue with protoss than terran, The MSC really did kill off any remaining vestige of fun in the protoss MUs, PO more or less immunizing them to early pressure is just such a bad way to handle the mess that is PvP. It seems kind of like a lost cause at this point.
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.
Would terran need more changes to accommodate any potential nerfs to the marine? Yes. Is it going to be easy or straightforward? Likely not. Is it an avenue worth exploring? I think so.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
Terran macro mechanics are definitely part of their problem, one really bad fight usually spells the end of the game for them. Since they can't get their basic units out as quickly, or cohesively, as protoss or zerg, they have to be more potent.
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.
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.
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 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 01:31 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 01:31 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 01:31 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 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 01:31 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 01:31 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 01:31 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 01:31 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 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 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 00:41 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.
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 01:31 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 02:35 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 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.
On July 19 2014 09:26 Varroth wrote: Did Happy just say that the very top terran players are better than the very top protoss and zergs?
This view that terrans are better than Zergs/Protoss players is just so disgusting.. that top zerg and protoss players somewhat rely on their race while for terrans its pure damn skill. Despicable.
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.
"gas units" was the key word I believe. Part of the strength of the marine is that it only requires minerals (no gas) but it can trade efficiently vs. gas units and be produced consistently all game long.
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 it's almost impossible. Point is that there is no macro strategy viable for P without Colossi or Storm because of the Marine.
And there is no viable strategy for terran without viking against colo or ghost against HT ? Vikings/medivacs/ghost are latter stage units too. It just happens they don't have AoE attack. I bet you 10$ that if you use only gateway unit vs rax unit, terran will be rekt in no time. You are talking like terrans are wining with only 2 units when they use 6. As much as the protoss btw.
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.
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).
I said no such thing and any honest reading of what I wrote should demonstrate that. It a was a point of comparison to elucidate on the fundamental difference between the dynamics of the marine vs the zealot or the zergling. At no point did I imply that a balance should be predicated on a mix of units from different races.
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 .
No, marines scale far better with the medivac support than the units of other races, that is a different issue. The original, and only point I ever made, that is being lost in the pointless bantering about semantics, was that marines limit the possibilities of improving other options for terran. Because of their incredible cost-efficiency and overall strength, it means that any significant buff to a supporting unit could break the game, as it opens a massive window of marine plus X timings, before an opponent can realistically have the units needed to fight both the marines and the auxiliary unit.
If we want to make other styles of terran viable, this has to be taken into account.
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.
"gas units" was the key word I believe.
Queens and spine cost so much gaz. and there is no viable marine early pressure in TvP.
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.
"gas units" was the key word I believe.
Queens and spine cost so much gaz. and there is no viable marine early pressure in TvP.
Queens and spines don't (typically) walk across the map and kill you (they have on occasion though :p)
Anyway, my point was that you can't say "the marine is perfect." Marines + X is viable in every single matchup and therefore every stat of the Marine has a huge impact on how the game is played. So if there is imbalance in any Terran matchup, the Marine is involved.
Maybe the marine is too strong in the late game vs. Gateway units and therefore it requires Protoss to have incredible AoE to deal with it... So any discussion about Storm or Colossus obviously is also a discussion about the Marine. Maybe Zerg needs banelings because without them Mass Marines beats literally anything Zerg makes. Okay.. then obviously discussions about Fungal's strength or Banelings are also really about the Marine.
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.
So I think we can agree on (1) that marines are not imbalanced in the early game. With (2) I think you exaggerate Terrans building of a gasbank when we are talking about mid game Terran. However, I agree there is a problem in the late game, where Terran has already spent everything there is to get for the bio composition that uses gas, but this is not a problem with the marine, but rather the apparent ineffectiveness of the late game units? For a time ghosts were skipped altogether vs P, because terrans thought they wouldn't really give any advantage. Nowadays ghosts are used and with the need for vikings we rarely see gas banks, unless, as is for all the races, there is a stale period in the game with two maxed out armies and a lot of bases mining.
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.
"gas units" was the key word I believe.
Queens and spine cost so much gaz. and there is no viable marine early pressure in TvP.
Queens and spines don't (typically) walk across the map and kill you (they have on occasion though :p)
Anyway, my point was that you can't say "the marine is perfect." Marines + X is viable in every single matchup and therefore every stat of the Marine has a huge impact on how the game is played. So if there is imbalance in any Terran matchup, the Marine is involved.
Maybe the marine is too strong in the late game vs. Gateway units and therefore it requires Protoss to have incredible AoE to deal with it... So any discussion about Storm or Colossus obviously is also a discussion about the Marine.
You know, the zealot is used in every single match up. The zergling too. It's a core and basic unit. Since currently, say Z>T. Do we need to nerf the zergling because it scall to much with the baneling ? I mean, if prevent the terran from splitting correcly without taking huge additional hit and allowing mutas to take on in the fight. I mean, you zergling is still used in the very late game is this MU. Should we nerf it ?
And about TvP, if the marine is so strong in lategame vs gateway unit, but so weak against AoE protoss, why don't we nerf AoE a little so that it even things out ?
You know, sc2 is an asymetrical game. If you wanted everything to value the exact same everytime, there wouls be only a single race. It happens that terran as the strongest t1 unit (I disagree, it just has a great synergy with later tech). But in counterpart, we don't have huge reproduction capacity like P and Z, we don't have sick AoE like Storm or colossi, or even fungal.
It would be stupid to nerf a unit because it looks like it's very useful for a race. If you want to give more possibillity to the terran, just buff other units.
And anyway, you CAN'T nerf the marine without breaking every single match up in sc2. (yeah yeah, nerfing the marine would have an impact on pvz too).
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.
I agree. gneGne was trying to argue that marines alone can't be better than zealots or zerglings alone, or else Terran would just make marines and auto-win... and I (and others) responded with how Protoss defends *not* by just making zealots, but by making others units and structures... *that's* why Terrans can't just make marines and win. We don't actually see only zealots vs. only marines, which is why his comparison was silly.
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.
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).
I said no such thing and any honest reading of what I wrote should demonstrate that. It a was a point of comparison to elucidate on the fundamental difference between the dynamics of the marine vs the zealot or the zergling. At no point did I imply that a balance should be predicated on a mix of units from different races.
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 .
No, marines scale far better with the medivac support than the units of other races, that is a different issue. The original, and only point I ever made, that is being lost in the pointless bantering about semantics, was that marines limit the possibilities of improving other options for terran. Because of their incredible cost-efficiency and overall strength, it means that any significant buff to a supporting unit could break the game, as it opens a massive window of marine plus X timings, before an opponent can realistically have the units needed to fight both the marines and the auxiliary unit.
If we want to make other styles of terran viable, this has to be taken into account.
I am sorry I misunderstood on the first point, because you were talking about 2v2s where medivacs were paired with zealots and lings, I thought you were trying to show that those combinations were less effective, hence basing balance on the mixing of units.
How can you compare that other units scale less than the marine with the medivac? And why does the marine limit the other options for terran? Why does mech exist in TvT and TvZ? Im just not sure what you are getting at anymore. Who said anything about buffing supporting units that would benefit bio compositions? Why can't a unit be buffed in order so that it only encourages mech play without encouraging bio play? This could be the role for the Raven I reckon.
The other races have far more flexible production. They can afford to switch the core of the army, because their production mechanic allows it. A terran going bio+x can adjust the rine to rauder ratio while adding other support units. That'S the way the game works. Terran infrastructure is very VERY inflexible. I actually blame the reactor.
On July 22 2014 03:17 submarine wrote: rax with reactor (200/50/115): builds marines
The other races have far more flexible production. They can afford to switch the core of the army, because their production mechanic allows it. A terran going bio+x can adjust the rine to rauder ratio while adding other support units. That'S the way the game works. Terran infrastructure is very VERY inflexible. I actually blame the reactor.
To be fair, the barracks and the factory and the starport can all lift and switch add-ons at any time, so I don't think the Terran infrastructure is particularly inflexible. I think the Terran lacks versatility in regards to successful unit compositions because of game balance, but I don't think Terran would have a huge problem merely creating other units simply because reactor cores exist as an option.
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.
I agree. gneGne was trying to argue that marines alone can't be better than zealots or zerglings alone, or else Terran would just make marines and auto-win... and I (and others) responded with how Protoss defends *not* by just making zealots, but by making others units and structures... *that's* why Terrans can't just make marines and win. We don't actually see only zealots vs. only marines, which is why his comparison was silly.
Perhaps this is fair. I agree that balance is not as easy as focusing on one unit, even in the early early game there are synergies between scv's/bunkers/marines, just as for protoss there is probes/zealot/msc, and zerg drone/ling/queen. But that is why I think it is not useful to blame solely the marine for imbalance in the first place. Either way early game Terran pressure is holdable.
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 it's almost impossible. Point is that there is no macro strategy viable for P without Colossi or Storm because of the Marine.
And there is no viable strategy for terran without viking against colo or ghost against HT ? Vikings/medivacs/ghost are latter stage units too. It just happens they don't have AoE attack. I bet you 10$ that if you use only gateway unit vs rax unit, terran will be rekt in no time. You are talking like terrans are wining with only 2 units when they use 6. As much as the protoss btw.
What kind of starcraft are u watching? Assuming even upgrades and stim finished, Bio > Gateway always when in high numbers. Blink stalkers are gateway only but they are only effective in a certain timing window which is pre medivac + stim. Once they are out the cost efficiency of blink stalkers is severly reduced. And nobody does Chargelot Archon anymore with the WM buff, even parting goes colossus now.
On July 19 2014 09:26 Varroth wrote: Did Happy just say that the very top terran players are better than the very top protoss and zergs?
This view that terrans are better than Zergs/Protoss players is just so disgusting.. that top zerg and protoss players somewhat rely on their race while for terrans its pure damn skill. Despicable.
true to an extant
I agree even as a protoss player. To be the best Terran is more mechanically challenging than being the best protoss or zerg but that is a problem in design, not that the race is OP
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.
I agree. gneGne was trying to argue that marines alone can't be better than zealots or zerglings alone, or else Terran would just make marines and auto-win... and I (and others) responded with how Protoss defends *not* by just making zealots, but by making others units and structures... *that's* why Terrans can't just make marines and win. We don't actually see only zealots vs. only marines, which is why his comparison was silly.
Perhaps this is fair. I agree that balance is not as easy as focusing on one unit, even in the early early game there are synergies between scv's/bunkers/marines, just as for protoss there is probes/zealot/msc, and zerg drone/ling/queen. But that is why I think it is not useful to blame solely the marine for imbalance in the first place. Either way early game Terran pressure is holdable.
Yeah I don't think you can solely blame the marine for imbalance either, and I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone was saying that the marine is 100% of the reasons why imbalances exist in SC2.
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.
So I think we can agree on (1) that marines are not imbalanced in the early game. With (2) I think you exaggerate Terrans building of a gasbank when we are talking about mid game Terran. However, I agree there is a problem in the late game, where Terran has already spent everything there is to get for the bio composition that uses gas, but this is not a problem with the marine, but rather the apparent ineffectiveness of the late game units? For a time ghosts were skipped altogether vs P, because terrans thought they wouldn't really give any advantage. Nowadays ghosts are used and with the need for vikings we rarely see gas banks, unless, as is for all the races, there is a stale period in the game with two maxed out armies and a lot of bases mining.
To be clear: Im far from saying that marines are imbalanced. The thing is, they are extremely limiting on what the opponent can do and they are so strong that most other Terran units are balanced to only fill support roles for them. Else it would become very hard to counter a Terran army if you'd still be required to react as hard to the marines as peope are forced to right now, but also had to take find a way to counter another very strong unit differently. The part about lategame is partly true and leads back to exactly what I said in the sentence before. You dont make the other units as much because they are balanced down.
@Faust: the other races mine more gas to begin with and spend it all through the game on units while for terran it is mainly medivacs and ugrades especially in TvZ. Once you are out of upgrades, the gasbank starts building. And yes, the lategame units are either weak or at least hard to transition into with bio. It would be pretty criminally good if you could play your biopushes in which only one player can actually lose straight up and that isnt you because you are in his face and not vis-verca, but also get to freely tech into a ravenfleet that you could instause to strengthen your attack further and have a lategame with it. That just doesnt add up, an aggressive playstyle must backfire if you dont do damage and asking to safely do damage while not fully commiting (because you also build a strong lategame) is not possible because then players will just fully commit and win straight up.
And yes, of course the marine is a superfun unit. Guess what the most fun unit to play with in the history of starcraft was... the WoL Infestor - then they rightfully nerfed it, and not everything else to "keep the infestor fun". Guess what the most fun Zerg unit currently is: Supermutas. Strong (aggressive) units are superfun to play with. Blink allins are superfun to execute. That doesnt justify that they limit your opponents fun because he has to go "that one" techpath everygame.
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 it's almost impossible. Point is that there is no macro strategy viable for P without Colossi or Storm because of the Marine.
And there is no viable strategy for terran without viking against colo or ghost against HT ? Vikings/medivacs/ghost are latter stage units too. It just happens they don't have AoE attack. I bet you 10$ that if you use only gateway unit vs rax unit, terran will be rekt in no time. You are talking like terrans are wining with only 2 units when they use 6. As much as the protoss btw.
What kind of starcraft are u watching? Assuming even upgrades and stim finished, Bio > Gateway always when in high numbers. Blink stalkers are gateway only but they are only effective in a certain timing window which is pre medivac + stim. Once they are out the cost efficiency of blink stalkers is severly reduced. And nobody does Chargelot Archon anymore with the WM buff, even parting goes colossus now.
On July 19 2014 09:26 Varroth wrote: Did Happy just say that the very top terran players are better than the very top protoss and zergs?
This view that terrans are better than Zergs/Protoss players is just so disgusting.. that top zerg and protoss players somewhat rely on their race while for terrans its pure damn skill. Despicable.
true to an extant
I agree even as a protoss player. To be the best Terran is more mechanically challenging than being the best protoss or zerg but that is a problem in design, not that the race is OP
I'm not the one utilizing stupid scenarii with gateball < bio. This doesn't make any sens. This never happens. Noone plays "just bio" without medivacs, or viking and ghost in late game. People say that bio rekt get ball, but this is fondamentally stupid to think like that since terran won't play with just bio. This is normal that terran beat only zealot and stalkers when they have medivacs to support them right ? Then it's normal for terran to lose to colossi when they don't have vikings, etc. That's how the game work and taking a single unrealistic scenario to prove that bio > gate units is stupid as hell.
@Faust: the other races mine more gas to begin with and spend it all through the game on units while for terran it is mainly medivacs and ugrades especially in TvZ. Once you are out of upgrades, the gasbank starts building. And yes, the lategame units are either weak or at least hard to transition into with bio. It would be pretty criminally good if you could play your biopushes in which only one player can actually lose straight up and that isnt you because you are in his face and not vis-verca, but also get to freely tech into a ravenfleet that you could instause to strengthen your attack further and have a lategame with it. That just doesnt add up, an aggressive playstyle must backfire if you dont do damage and asking to safely do damage while not fully commiting (because you also build a strong lategame) is not possible because then players will just fully commit and win straight up.
And yes, of course the marine is a superfun unit. Guess what the most fun unit to play with in the history of starcraft was... the WoL Infestor - then they rightfully nerfed it, and not everything else to "keep the infestor fun". Guess what the most fun Zerg unit currently is: Supermutas. Strong (aggressive) units are superfun to play with. Blink allins are superfun to execute. That doesnt justify that they limit your opponents fun because he has to go "that one" techpath everygame.
Are you really saying that infestor was considered fun ? Even pros agreed that it was a stupid imbalanced unit. It was so stupid that even without much micro it was imbalanced. I don't see the correlation between imbalanced and fun. I don't remember a single game where a zerg won in BL infest era that was considered "good". But after that, you can check what is considered the best game in the history of sc2, and you will realize that the marine is a big part of it. An unit doesn't need to be imbalance to be fun. Pheonix are fun. Marines are funs. Even zergling in the hands of Life are ultra fun. Mutalisk was fun in WoL because it was a risk/reward unit with very huge micro potential. The HotS mutalisk is no fun because there is absolutly no risk using them agressively.
@Faust: the other races mine more gas to begin with and spend it all through the game on units while for terran it is mainly medivacs and ugrades especially in TvZ. Once you are out of upgrades, the gasbank starts building. And yes, the lategame units are either weak or at least hard to transition into with bio. It would be pretty criminally good if you could play your biopushes in which only one player can actually lose straight up and that isnt you because you are in his face and not vis-verca, but also get to freely tech into a ravenfleet that you could instause to strengthen your attack further and have a lategame with it. That just doesnt add up, an aggressive playstyle must backfire if you dont do damage and asking to safely do damage while not fully commiting (because you also build a strong lategame) is not possible because then players will just fully commit and win straight up.
And yes, of course the marine is a superfun unit. Guess what the most fun unit to play with in the history of starcraft was... the WoL Infestor - then they rightfully nerfed it, and not everything else to "keep the infestor fun". Guess what the most fun Zerg unit currently is: Supermutas. Strong (aggressive) units are superfun to play with. Blink allins are superfun to execute. That doesnt justify that they limit your opponents fun because he has to go "that one" techpath everygame.
Are you really saying that infestor was considered fun ? Even pros agreed that it was a stupid imbalanced unit. It was so stupid that even without much micro it was imbalanced. I don't see the correlation between imbalanced and fun. I don't remember a single game where a zerg won in BL infest era that was considered "good". But after that, you can check what is considered the best game in the history of sc2, and you will realize that the marine is a big part of it. An unit doesn't need to be imbalance to be fun. Pheonix are fun. Marines are funs. Even zergling in the hands of Life are ultra fun. Mutalisk was fun in WoL because it was a risk/reward unit with very huge micro potential. The HotS mutalisk is no fun because there is absolutly no risk using them agressively.
I didnt say a unit must be imbalanced to be fun. I said a strong unit is naturally fun. Reverse side of the implication.
And yes, Infestors were considered superfun... go back to destiny and stephano times with them. Noone ever said it wasnt fun to play with them. What wasnt fun was seeing Terrans drop like flies to those units. Just like it wasnt fun to see Protoss die to 1-1-1s over and over again, though playing the 1-1-1 yourself was pretty entertaining. And no, risk/reward doesnt make a unit more or less fun to play with. It makes it more fun to play against it. Flying around with 30mutas and blowing up your shit is however huge fun to me, just not for you.
Edit: and there were tons of fun games involving broodord infestor. People just hate and hated on it because the game got stale and it wasnt fair and the winner too predictable which sometimes killed the tension. Similarily to how people got disgusted when all the Zergs were dropping to 4M and how DRGs win in a long TvZ series in 3macro games against Innovation was almost considered a miracle.
@Faust: the other races mine more gas to begin with and spend it all through the game on units while for terran it is mainly medivacs and ugrades especially in TvZ. Once you are out of upgrades, the gasbank starts building. And yes, the lategame units are either weak or at least hard to transition into with bio. It would be pretty criminally good if you could play your biopushes in which only one player can actually lose straight up and that isnt you because you are in his face and not vis-verca, but also get to freely tech into a ravenfleet that you could instause to strengthen your attack further and have a lategame with it. That just doesnt add up, an aggressive playstyle must backfire if you dont do damage and asking to safely do damage while not fully commiting (because you also build a strong lategame) is not possible because then players will just fully commit and win straight up.
And yes, of course the marine is a superfun unit. Guess what the most fun unit to play with in the history of starcraft was... the WoL Infestor - then they rightfully nerfed it, and not everything else to "keep the infestor fun". Guess what the most fun Zerg unit currently is: Supermutas. Strong (aggressive) units are superfun to play with. Blink allins are superfun to execute. That doesnt justify that they limit your opponents fun because he has to go "that one" techpath everygame.
Are you really saying that infestor was considered fun ? Even pros agreed that it was a stupid imbalanced unit. It was so stupid that even without much micro it was imbalanced. I don't see the correlation between imbalanced and fun. I don't remember a single game where a zerg won in BL infest era that was considered "good". But after that, you can check what is considered the best game in the history of sc2, and you will realize that the marine is a big part of it. An unit doesn't need to be imbalance to be fun. Pheonix are fun. Marines are funs. Even zergling in the hands of Life are ultra fun. Mutalisk was fun in WoL because it was a risk/reward unit with very huge micro potential. The HotS mutalisk is no fun because there is absolutly no risk using them agressively.
I didnt say a unit must be imbalanced to be fun. I said a strong unit is naturally fun. Reverse side of the implication.
And yes, Infestors were considered superfun... go back to destiny and stephano times with them. Noone ever said it wasnt fun to play with them. What wasnt fun was seeing Terrans drop like flies to those units. Just like it wasnt fun to see Protoss die to 1-1-1s over and over again, though playing the 1-1-1 yourself was pretty entertaining. And no, risk/reward doesnt make a unit more or less fun to play with. It makes it more fun to play against it. Flying around with 30mutas and blowing up your shit is however huge fun to me, just not for you.
Edit: and there were tons of fun games involving broodord infestor. People just hate and hated on it because the game got stale and it wasnt fair and the winner too predictable which sometimes killed the tension. Similarily to how people got disgusted when all the Zergs were dropping to 4M and how DRGs win in a long TvZ series in 3macro games against Innovation was almost considered a miracle.
TvZ was okay to watch vs. broodlord infestor at first, although it was frustrating to play for a lot of terrans. PvZ against broodlord infestor was never fun to watch or play at all. Terrans at least had some decent harass options at the time. Protoss had literally no options for harass once the spines and spores were up, had no way of getting a good engagement other than hoping for a good vortex, and once players figured out how to neural the mothership or spread their broodlords, had very little hope of even getting that.
TvZ got bad reasonably quickly too. Broodlord infestor was a composition that had no real weakness if controlled properly, was too outright powerful, and could be obtained far too quickly. It's no surprise every game was an all-in from toss or terran against zerg and zerg either holding it and then winning or being a little too greedy.
And yes, it sucked for terran to play against broodlord infestor, but it was even worse for protoss. Terran at least had the potential to maybe win the engagement with insanely good ghost control and viking control due to the range of those units (yes it was insanely hard, but players like Gumiho and MMA occasionally managed it), Protoss literally had no option other than 'hope the vortex hits'.
For me fun is when a game is competitive and you feel you had to really fight for your win. Aren't what you call the strong fun units, also the units which are potentially huge micro sinks? Which also make the micro/macro balance so important (don't overmicro/undermicro)?
On July 22 2014 05:06 gneGne wrote: For me fun is when a game is competitive and you feel you had to really fight for your win. Aren't what you call the strong fun units, also the units which are huge micro sinks? Which also make the micro/macro balance so important?
True, but you want to feel like your opponent had to fight for his win too. Unfortunately, most players don't recognize skill from zerg or protoss players because it's less flashy. If it isn't marine splitting or a cool drop trick or something, it's not seen as skill or difficult, regardless of how hard it actually is.
@Faust: the other races mine more gas to begin with and spend it all through the game on units while for terran it is mainly medivacs and ugrades especially in TvZ. Once you are out of upgrades, the gasbank starts building. And yes, the lategame units are either weak or at least hard to transition into with bio. It would be pretty criminally good if you could play your biopushes in which only one player can actually lose straight up and that isnt you because you are in his face and not vis-verca, but also get to freely tech into a ravenfleet that you could instause to strengthen your attack further and have a lategame with it. That just doesnt add up, an aggressive playstyle must backfire if you dont do damage and asking to safely do damage while not fully commiting (because you also build a strong lategame) is not possible because then players will just fully commit and win straight up.
And yes, of course the marine is a superfun unit. Guess what the most fun unit to play with in the history of starcraft was... the WoL Infestor - then they rightfully nerfed it, and not everything else to "keep the infestor fun". Guess what the most fun Zerg unit currently is: Supermutas. Strong (aggressive) units are superfun to play with. Blink allins are superfun to execute. That doesnt justify that they limit your opponents fun because he has to go "that one" techpath everygame.
Are you really saying that infestor was considered fun ? Even pros agreed that it was a stupid imbalanced unit. It was so stupid that even without much micro it was imbalanced. I don't see the correlation between imbalanced and fun. I don't remember a single game where a zerg won in BL infest era that was considered "good". But after that, you can check what is considered the best game in the history of sc2, and you will realize that the marine is a big part of it. An unit doesn't need to be imbalance to be fun. Pheonix are fun. Marines are funs. Even zergling in the hands of Life are ultra fun. Mutalisk was fun in WoL because it was a risk/reward unit with very huge micro potential. The HotS mutalisk is no fun because there is absolutly no risk using them agressively.
I didnt say a unit must be imbalanced to be fun. I said a strong unit is naturally fun. Reverse side of the implication.
And yes, Infestors were considered superfun... go back to destiny and stephano times with them. Noone ever said it wasnt fun to play with them. What wasnt fun was seeing Terrans drop like flies to those units. Just like it wasnt fun to see Protoss die to 1-1-1s over and over again, though playing the 1-1-1 yourself was pretty entertaining. And no, risk/reward doesnt make a unit more or less fun to play with. It makes it more fun to play against it. Flying around with 30mutas and blowing up your shit is however huge fun to me, just not for you.
Edit: and there were tons of fun games involving broodord infestor. People just hate and hated on it because the game got stale and it wasnt fair and the winner too predictable which sometimes killed the tension. Similarily to how people got disgusted when all the Zergs were dropping to 4M and how DRGs win in a long TvZ series in 3macro games against Innovation was almost considered a miracle.
It might be fun individually when you are playing your ranked ladder game. I'm talking about watching pro tournament. And even casters were bored. And you are exagerating quite a lot saying that 4M was demolishing Z, FYI, winrate were quite equivalent. (50,3% the month prior the WM nerf).
On July 22 2014 05:06 gneGne wrote: For me fun is when a game is competitive and you feel you had to really fight for your win. Aren't what you call the strong fun units, also the units which are huge micro sinks? Which also make the micro/macro balance so important?
True, but you want to feel like your opponent had to fight for his win too. Unfortunately, most players don't recognize skill from zerg or protoss players because it's less flashy. If it isn't marine splitting or a cool drop trick or something, it's not seen as skill or difficult, regardless of how hard it actually is.
Yeah, I heard enough of "AMAZING STORMS" "AMAZING FUNGALS" "AWESOME FORCEFIELD" to know that it isn't true and that casters know how to hype ez things like doing some storms on a bio army.
On July 22 2014 05:06 gneGne wrote: For me fun is when a game is competitive and you feel you had to really fight for your win. Aren't what you call the strong fun units, also the units which are huge micro sinks? Which also make the micro/macro balance so important?
True, but you want to feel like your opponent had to fight for his win too. Unfortunately, most players don't recognize skill from zerg or protoss players because it's less flashy. If it isn't marine splitting or a cool drop trick or something, it's not seen as skill or difficult, regardless of how hard it actually is.
Yeah, I heard enough of "AMAZING STORMS" "AMAZING FUNGALS" "AWESOME FORCEFIELD" to know that it isn't true and that casters know how to hype ez things like doing some storms on a bio army.
You're being sarcastic, but you're actually right, casters for the most part don't know anything about skill in the game either, and don't know how to draw attention to such things, they only talk about what's flashy and obvious. It's hard to blame them because that's what you need to do for newbies to get them interested, but for players who actually play the game but not at a very high level (and even some at a high level), it only helps to reinforce the stereotype of no skill.
@Faust: the other races mine more gas to begin with and spend it all through the game on units while for terran it is mainly medivacs and ugrades especially in TvZ. Once you are out of upgrades, the gasbank starts building. And yes, the lategame units are either weak or at least hard to transition into with bio. It would be pretty criminally good if you could play your biopushes in which only one player can actually lose straight up and that isnt you because you are in his face and not vis-verca, but also get to freely tech into a ravenfleet that you could instause to strengthen your attack further and have a lategame with it. That just doesnt add up, an aggressive playstyle must backfire if you dont do damage and asking to safely do damage while not fully commiting (because you also build a strong lategame) is not possible because then players will just fully commit and win straight up.
And yes, of course the marine is a superfun unit. Guess what the most fun unit to play with in the history of starcraft was... the WoL Infestor - then they rightfully nerfed it, and not everything else to "keep the infestor fun". Guess what the most fun Zerg unit currently is: Supermutas. Strong (aggressive) units are superfun to play with. Blink allins are superfun to execute. That doesnt justify that they limit your opponents fun because he has to go "that one" techpath everygame.
Are you really saying that infestor was considered fun ? Even pros agreed that it was a stupid imbalanced unit. It was so stupid that even without much micro it was imbalanced. I don't see the correlation between imbalanced and fun. I don't remember a single game where a zerg won in BL infest era that was considered "good". But after that, you can check what is considered the best game in the history of sc2, and you will realize that the marine is a big part of it. An unit doesn't need to be imbalance to be fun. Pheonix are fun. Marines are funs. Even zergling in the hands of Life are ultra fun. Mutalisk was fun in WoL because it was a risk/reward unit with very huge micro potential. The HotS mutalisk is no fun because there is absolutly no risk using them agressively.
I didnt say a unit must be imbalanced to be fun. I said a strong unit is naturally fun. Reverse side of the implication.
And yes, Infestors were considered superfun... go back to destiny and stephano times with them. Noone ever said it wasnt fun to play with them. What wasnt fun was seeing Terrans drop like flies to those units. Just like it wasnt fun to see Protoss die to 1-1-1s over and over again, though playing the 1-1-1 yourself was pretty entertaining. And no, risk/reward doesnt make a unit more or less fun to play with. It makes it more fun to play against it. Flying around with 30mutas and blowing up your shit is however huge fun to me, just not for you.
Edit: and there were tons of fun games involving broodord infestor. People just hate and hated on it because the game got stale and it wasnt fair and the winner too predictable which sometimes killed the tension. Similarily to how people got disgusted when all the Zergs were dropping to 4M and how DRGs win in a long TvZ series in 3macro games against Innovation was almost considered a miracle.
It might be fun individually when you are playing your ranked ladder game. I'm talking about watching pro tournament. And even casters were bored. And you are exagerating quite a lot saying that 4M was demolishing Z, FYI, winrate were quite equivalent. (50,3% the month prior the WM nerf).
The important parts about fun when watching imo are: 1) stuff is happening 2) the game is fair, hence tense BL/Infestor violated 2). You got the banshee harass, the occasional midgame timings, the drops, the occasional mutabuilds, the bigass do or die pushes, the zergling harass, the infestor harass. But you expectes the zerg to win in the lategame. Thats what made it less entertaining.
Im talking a bit before that and 4M. I dont think it was imbalanced, but Terrans had a metagame advantage and you expected them to win if Zergs didnt allin and clashed against the Innovation build. He winrates were like 55% in some months.
Well, arguably Innovation had the mechanics to back it up. Only SoulKey could play ball with Innovation late game, ironically in the GSL finals SoulKeys strong midgame attacks with roach and banes totally decimated Innovation.
On July 22 2014 05:54 Mutineer wrote: Usealy some one here make prediction sheet who can go to blizcon, anyone know about them? Because right now I believe only Taeja can get in
Taeja, Polt and Bomber are pretty much in. Maru will win GSL this season and qualify . jjakji will have to play better than what he's been doing lately but he has a good chance. In the end we could have 3-5 Terrans in Blizzcon, which would be of course on the lower side of balance, but not bad at all.
The Terran design vs Protoss design problem - people don't quite get it IMO.. Here's what I'm gonna explain:
In say WC3 standards - Terran is the NE, and Protoss is the Orc or the Undead.. The very basic difference is that with NE you focus-fire targets or neutralize them and focus on something else, whilest with Orc or Undead you PRESERVE YOUR key units as long as possible instead..
So yes - that IS THE VERY BASIC like CORE DESIGN LEVEL difference
Protoss actually DOES micro, only they micro to PRESERVE rather than focus-fire.. tft Protoss units are DESIGNED that way, they don't clump up, instead they bump of each other so no more than say like 6 or 7 units at a time can shoot at a Target and most of them have some kind of a "self-survival" ability in one or another way..
Terran on the other hand have units designed to shoot like 15, 20 or even 30 units at a time at a one same target..
PROTOSS concept is working well (but there's that "Colossus" problem), whilest Terran one isn't because they don't have a "flow control" as NE had.. The closest thing to flow control Terran have is the Marauder slow and it's kinda partially doing it's thing, but - terrans need a bit of a bigger slow, or some kind of a mid-cost supporting disablers.. Maybe some small AoE flow control of incomming damage (PDD is an overkill, and very situational, and comes from a very expensive unit, something more middle-ground is required).. Like - anything that will allow Terran more time to "prepare" rather than go totally YOLO with what they have once the battles commence
Protoss design flaw is the Colossus - it's a DPS support unit that doesn't even need "attention" to work well, so that's where lies the key problem
The very basics of design of Terran and Protoss are the following:
1 - Terran uses it's "cheap core units" to chip away from their opponents, the bio does that "pick-off one, pick-off another, pick-off 3rd" target before the "big-battle-engagement" starts, but once there are those big numbers.., The big units are the ones that "should do but don't do" support instead.. Terran support fails at "controlling that flow" so they end up run over.. OR they just overkill the opponent with splash (such as mass Raven's HSM), so that' another different "the total reverse by diameter" problem..
2 - Protoss on the other hand uses their core units as a FODDER.. Protoss damage dealers and game-changers are EXACTLY THE SUPPORTERS.. Protoss sacrifices Zealots, Stalkers, and stuff so HTs and Colossi can do those BIG HITS, and the Protoss micro is about "area control" as well as PRESERVING your key "targets" and saving them for another day.. That's why WG works SO WELL with the Protoss design, cause it creates/allows more opportunities/chances to PRESERVE exactly those big "shots" you have..
Most of the (at least the well designed Protoss units) have that "survive for another day" mechanic so they can extend their purpose and "overlast" their opponent.. Stalkers have Blink, Sentries have FF and Guardian shields (and even Hallu can also be used that same way - survive for another day by making more, in this particular case - fake - fodder), Voidrays have - well - they have the "retreat" mechanic called micro of a good Protoss player once their shields go low, Colossi have "back off and climb up" mech, Tempars have the Merge button so once they've done "what they can" they can do more again.. The only 2 units that are "exceptions" from that are the Zealots (they're designed to go yolo, hence their role being THE FODDER), and the Archons (but at some specific scenarios Archons can be BOTH - unit that needs preserving and a fodder simultaneously at times, or at least that being dependant of what other units the Protoss has, if Protoss has Stalkers or Colossi then the Archon is a fodder, If the Protoss has Zealot/Sentry then the Archon is a KEY SUPPORTER)
Now people may argue about - why a-move zealot, blah, blah, well simply - it's not that the Zealot is the Problem, the only real problem (like only real big problem) Terran have is the Colossus, and that's that.. Everything else Terrans can force the Protoss to micro, but the only unit they can't force the Protoss to have it microed is the Colossus.. As long as Protoss has units that can defend themselves, or synergizedly defend, but also be "highly responsively exposed" to Terran fire, the dynamic is created like that, but - it's simple in this case - all P needs to do is focus the Vikings and voila, you have a KEY unit that doesn't even depend on what Terran forces you to do.. In other words - the flaw is that Terran can't force Protoss micro if they have Colossi, at least not without a big investment, and that's kinda the problem
The closest a-move unit that comes next on that list is the Archon, but it's not that much of a game-changer, as long as there weren't those "Colossi" things shooting all the time from the back while you work the sh*t out of your ass of at the front and do your best.. Fighting a rather ordinary Protoss army with Colossi in the back is like trying to fight a knight while there's a rain-of-arrows shooting at you all the time while you try to "duel"
So the core game design problem lies in there - Terran needs more "flow control" and Protoss needs more "babysitting support units that do the big swipes instead of an auto-targetting-unit that does not "care" and simply does most of things all by itself.. The Colossus after all "should be" a very key core "have to preserve" unit, but what happens instead is it just shoots on it's own and does the damage
And the real irony about the Terran race is that the "flow control lack" of Terran doesn't get shown in the Protoss matchup, but instead it gets clearly shown from the "3rd race".. The vs Zerg clearly shows that Terran's "lack of flow control" design problem..
So there's another "problem" - Protoss doesn't directly indicate Terran's weakness, so it's not a simple one-matchup tweak, but Zerg does that instead.. Only that the Zerg's designed to be weak overall itself so it doesn't make that Terran weakness in a "too hard of a scale".. If Zergs had a massable unit that has more than 35 hp, then it would be easily shown where the Terran's weakness lies instead
So basically there lies that problem, and once Terran has a decent to good flow-control, some space can be "created" so Marines can be nerfed or not even just reworked in a way so they can get a synergetic unit that can make them more "safe" but at the cost at the opponent also having more ways to prevent the Marine from doing the damage..
I still kinda "stand on that" that at least in the attack speed of the Marine could get nerfed for like 10-15% and it wouldn't even be as game-breaking if indeed Terran had what it really lacks - flow control so they can buy more time to "pick-off" more targets, other than doing the direct damage (if support is the deal mass damage type - it creates the problem of forcing the battle in being all about a single hit or miss, which ends up in a whole battle being decided in a single "blink" moment..)
It's like - I simply don't see other way to "fix" that problem, it's give Terran a cheaper-ish starport unit that can support core armies instead of being a just another "brick in the wall", i.e. - just another back-door "pile" for the opponent, and then there are a lot more ways that things can be "tweaked" after that
So that's like the "broader" looks of things.. That's even why people shouldn't "compare" Marines to Zealots and vice-versa, but you could maybe (and it would be more reasonable) discuss about whether the Marine does too good what it does and the Zealot does too good what it does.. Not to compare if Zeaot does better or the Marine does better, they're designed to be "on the opposite side of the track".. The real good discussion would be is whether you think of that the Marine is too good of a DPS-er (for it's cost) and whether the Zealot is too good of a fodder (for it's cost), but comparing them (on a general level) IMO simply makes no sense (though being too much of a long/broad post, hope it makes things a bit "make more sense")
with the whole reverting of patch things such as with widow-mine... i why not just give time-warp back to the Oracle; makes their use in mid-game much better... and i think solves a bit of the problem with time-warp on the MSC as i think part problem with time-warp is just that it's so easily available as everyone has a MSC already; time-warp isnt as strong with an all-in if ur all-in has to be weaker cause u have to get an oracle...
that being sad, i think time has made me forget why time-warp on oracle was so bad in the first place...
On July 22 2014 14:39 worosei wrote: with the whole reverting of patch things such as with widow-mine... i why not just give time-warp back to the Oracle; makes their use in mid-game much better... and i think solves a bit of the problem with time-warp on the MSC as i think part problem with time-warp is just that it's so easily available as everyone has a MSC already; time-warp isnt as strong with an all-in if ur all-in has to be weaker cause u have to get an oracle...
that being sad, i think time has made me forget why time-warp on oracle was so bad in the first place...
Remember when there was a spell to lock mineral patches away from being mined? Lol.
Currently Thor is prioritizing air until something comes closer like a ling, then it attacks the lings instead of the mutas.
On July 22 2014 05:06 gneGne wrote: For me fun is when a game is competitive and you feel you had to really fight for your win. Aren't what you call the strong fun units, also the units which are huge micro sinks? Which also make the micro/macro balance so important?
True, but you want to feel like your opponent had to fight for his win too. Unfortunately, most players don't recognize skill from zerg or protoss players because it's less flashy. If it isn't marine splitting or a cool drop trick or something, it's not seen as skill or difficult, regardless of how hard it actually is.
Yeah, I heard enough of "AMAZING STORMS" "AMAZING FUNGALS" "AWESOME FORCEFIELD" to know that it isn't true and that casters know how to hype ez things like doing some storms on a bio army.
Did you intentionally not mention "AMAZING WIDOW MINE SHOT"?
On July 22 2014 14:39 worosei wrote: with the whole reverting of patch things such as with widow-mine... i why not just give time-warp back to the Oracle; makes their use in mid-game much better... and i think solves a bit of the problem with time-warp on the MSC as i think part problem with time-warp is just that it's so easily available as everyone has a MSC already; time-warp isnt as strong with an all-in if ur all-in has to be weaker cause u have to get an oracle...
that being sad, i think time has made me forget why time-warp on oracle was so bad in the first place...
Remember when there was a spell to lock mineral patches away from being mined? Lol.
Currently Thor is prioritizing air until something comes closer like a ling, then it attacks the lings instead of the mutas.
oh lol haha yes yes, time-warp was the new entomb... i think time-warp seemed even crapper compared to time-warp,
but now im just imagining constant time-warps with multiple oracles... crap idea,... i'll side with the nerf
On July 22 2014 05:06 gneGne wrote: For me fun is when a game is competitive and you feel you had to really fight for your win. Aren't what you call the strong fun units, also the units which are huge micro sinks? Which also make the micro/macro balance so important?
True, but you want to feel like your opponent had to fight for his win too. Unfortunately, most players don't recognize skill from zerg or protoss players because it's less flashy. If it isn't marine splitting or a cool drop trick or something, it's not seen as skill or difficult, regardless of how hard it actually is.
Yeah, I heard enough of "AMAZING STORMS" "AMAZING FUNGALS" "AWESOME FORCEFIELD" to know that it isn't true and that casters know how to hype ez things like doing some storms on a bio army.
Did you intentionally not mention "AMAZING WIDOW MINE SHOT"?
Yeah maybe, I don't remember a good WM shoot (something that kill maybe 8 banes ?) in ages so. But with the future patch, we'll here that infinitly more often.
Did you intentionally not mention "AMAZING WIDOW MINE SHOT"?
Wel, they actually became quite rare as zergs improved their play. It definitely wasn't quite often in the September-November period we would see Widow Mines suddenly just hit like 7 Banelings or something like that.
Did you intentionally not mention "AMAZING WIDOW MINE SHOT"?
Wel, they actually became quite rare as zergs improved their play. It definitely wasn't quite often in the September-November period we would see Widow Mines suddenly just hit like 7 Banelings or something like that.
Well - that SHOULD actually be/remain like that.. BOTH Storms and Fungals come out from a 150 gas unit, while you wanna "even out" those with a unit that costs only 25 gas, no offense
Did you intentionally not mention "AMAZING WIDOW MINE SHOT"?
Wel, they actually became quite rare as zergs improved their play. It definitely wasn't quite often in the September-November period we would see Widow Mines suddenly just hit like 7 Banelings or something like that.
Well - that SHOULD actually be/remain like that.. BOTH Storms and Fungals come out from a 150 gas unit, while you wanna "even out" those with a unit that costs only 25 gas, no offense
Well, yeh, and since it wasn't like that prior to the Widow Mine buff, then we can easily go back there anyway. Then only bad zergs will get punished if they do not split their units priorly.
The same concept can be applied to Banelings. Terrans who have bad unit control get punished, but when your using them against terrans with better control, it's quite unlikely you get situations where 5 banelings kill 25 Marines (etc.)
The issue with how they work currently is that it's AOE isn't large enough to really reward any type of split-micro. As zerg you can simply right click your banelings and amove your banelings (if there isn't maurauder/Thors - if there is you also right click banelings) in a big group. That's a very big assymetry in terms of micro requirements relative to what terran has to do, and I don't think you will see any zergs deny that. Back when Widow Mines had larger AOE, it took more micro and skill as zerg to engage, which I personally found made the game better. Ofc there was this period early HOTS where it looked too strong, but after zergs adapted and received the Overseer buff, the matchup started to feel much more dynamic and fair.
Since balance statistically looked great and we had lots of great matches in the September-November period, and balance today isn't good, it makes sense to go back to what we know worked well and revert the Widow Mine nerf.
The original Widow Mine nerf would only succeed in "rebalancing" the game on the premise that the Tank/Widow Mine synergy would be good enough so that players would mix them in together. That was, however, a flawed assumption and I don't believe it's realistic to get that work in HOTS.
FYI, Gas isn't really something you worry about when you go 4M. You could easily change cost to 50/50 instead and terrans would just get 6 geysers instead of 5 in the midgame and be fine. With this type of logic, you could also argue that Ghosts are OP since they cost 100Gas and HT's UP since they cost 150gas. If anything, the contrary is closer to the truth, thus this is a very poor variable to look at when assessing balance.
Instead, balancewise, the question one must answer is whether terran gets good enough trades given how the zerg production/macroeconomics (incl. creep spread) work, and which variable is the correct one to change in order to improve both balance and gameplay.
Did you intentionally not mention "AMAZING WIDOW MINE SHOT"?
Wel, they actually became quite rare as zergs improved their play. It definitely wasn't quite often in the September-November period we would see Widow Mines suddenly just hit like 7 Banelings or something like that.
Well - that SHOULD actually be/remain like that.. BOTH Storms and Fungals come out from a 150 gas unit, while you wanna "even out" those with a unit that costs only 25 gas, no offense
There are differences though. A mine can be picked off easily before it shoots, due to the siege mechanic+the shot delay. A mine can be triggered (unless the Terran is really good in retargeting and unburrowing, which you cannot do consistently). A mine can be fully avoided by running out of its range again (while storms can never be fully avoided, you are going to be hit by 2+ ticks of it usually) A mine only has 5range, which is so little that a good amount of ranged units can just a-move it without triggering it. A mine cannot store multiple shots.
That said, I think the mine is a reasonably balanced unit right now. A mine is costefficient when it hits 1baneling+1zergling, or 1zealot, which is nearly guaranteed. On average they kill much more stuff near instantly, while still tanking damage afterwards, sometimes even surviving and damaging other units. If Terran has trouble with these kinds of bigger masses of units, then there is either an economy problem behind it, that makes Terran not have enough stuff or a crowd control problem, that would require changes to their bigger splash dealers. However, the mine with its one-hit-kill 120(+40) damage for little money simply cannot be treated like a crowd control unit imo, since it is also has a strong mechanic against single opponents and is lacking the range.
That said, I think the mine is a reasonably balanced unit right now. A mine is costefficient when it hits 1baneling+1zergling, or 1zealot, which is nearly guaranteed. On average they kill much more stuff near instantly, while still tanking damage afterwards, sometimes even surviving and damaging other units.
Yes, it's reasonable balanced if races had similar production efficiency. But just like protoss in PvZ needs some "imba"-abilities/units vs zerg, so does terran need a unit that can make terran more cost-effective than it currently is.
Some people talk about buffing Ghost, Ravens, Siege Tanks, BC's etc. to improve terran cost-efficiecny (instead of WM), however there are two problems here;
1) No real obvoius variables to tweak on in order to make them a viable part of your bio-composition in both TvZ and TvP while maintaining balance in other mathchups (TvT and mech vs zerg). 2) While they will make gameplay more diverse, these units often times lead to very stale situations and people will get tired of watching them too often if they become "standard". Siege Tank works well when it can be used aggressively. For instance, I absolutely love using it in TvT, it just works perfectly there now that mech has an easier time moving out (relative to WOL). But vs Muta/bling, it's always just gonna be a turtle/timing attack oriented unit.
For Siege tank/bio symmetry I believe there is no real fix in HOTS. Your just always gonna prefer either 4M or complete mech. But in LOTV I would so much love to see the following;
- Swarm Host becomes more like a Lurker in two ways: 1) Much much lower effective range of the unit, so that Siege Tanks can outrange lurkers in Siege mode. 2) Swarm Host is a ton stronger in close up battles. - Raven gets reworked a bit so PDD isn't this super good scaly ability while it has other abilities which work better with bio play.
With those two changes, I think bio might wanna mix in Siege Tanks as they now offer something unique vs Zerg that widow mines doens't (outranges SH). I think lots of people like the Lurker vs Siege Tank dynamic from BW, and I definitely think parts of that could be implemented into Sc2 with some adjustments.
Then you would have two types of bio compositions: 1) 4M (vs Muta/bling) 2) Bio/Tank vs Swarm Host focussed play
And if mech also could be somewhat entertaining to play in the same instance (since Swarm Hosts gets redesigned anyway), that would just be so incredible awesome for the matchup.
Did you intentionally not mention "AMAZING WIDOW MINE SHOT"?
Wel, they actually became quite rare as zergs improved their play. It definitely wasn't quite often in the September-November period we would see Widow Mines suddenly just hit like 7 Banelings or something like that.
Well - that SHOULD actually be/remain like that.. BOTH Storms and Fungals come out from a 150 gas unit, while you wanna "even out" those with a unit that costs only 25 gas, no offense
There are differences though. A mine can be picked off easily before it shoots, due to the siege mechanic+the shot delay. A mine can be triggered (unless the Terran is really good in retargeting and unburrowing, which you cannot do consistently). A mine can be fully avoided by running out of its range again (while storms can never be fully avoided, you are going to be hit by 2+ ticks of it usually) A mine only has 5range, which is so little that a good amount of ranged units can just a-move it without triggering it. A mine cannot store multiple shots.
That said, I think the mine is a reasonably balanced unit right now. A mine is costefficient when it hits 1baneling+1zergling, or 1zealot, which is nearly guaranteed. On average they kill much more stuff near instantly, while still tanking damage afterwards, sometimes even surviving and damaging other units. If Terran has trouble with these kinds of bigger masses of units, then there is either an economy problem behind it, that makes Terran not have enough stuff or a crowd control problem, that would require changes to their bigger splash dealers. However, the mine with its one-hit-kill 120(+40) damage for little money simply cannot be treated like a crowd control unit imo, since it is also has a strong mechanic against single opponents and is lacking the range.
Widow Mines go well with tanks, marauders, maybe a vikings that are landed and spread out, certainly not an air ball, and thors. The splash damage is something these units can take, if forced to fight the enemy while burrowing mines. Mines and marines can actually be very bad for Terran unless they stay well away from their own mines. The splash radius nerf actually helped Terran in that regard, even though it's possible that the game wasn't settled at a point where Z or P could intelligently abuse mines own mechanic against T.
A 75-25 killing a single zealot isn't cost efficient in my mind. Gas has a much higher weight of value than minerals. Not sure what the ratio of value is, but it's definitely a premium resource of the two.
When dealing with later game P or Z, the extra speed burrow is a MUST have in order to use mines offensively at all. The unupgraded version can be useful for zoning still, if you put them in large flocks in specific areas, but there's almost no value in them when trying to attack and enemy army or base. When using mines offensively against an army, it is also a must that you have about 12+ of the things. Units that are unable to fire on your front lines will still find these mines a tasty snack as you try to micro them into an enemy army. Any splash units that can be pulled to deal with mines also can trump them, as in a few banes or archons.
Sometimes I'll have about 3-4 factories with reactors going at once. Seems like the only reasonable way to keep production up at the rate they're lost when sniped continuously by zerg or protoss.
As far as a true zoning/control unit for map control, they really have a desired and important synergy with bunkers and/or siege tank. They can't be tripped by a single unit if that unit is taken out before the thing fires, so a reasonably sized force is required to bust that area, which means either the entire army moves there or they take losses in a smaller force attempting to dislodge it, which can trade favorably for terran. It's possible that this could be valuable in either case, since if the army of P or Z really wants it out of the way, you're controlling where they're going, and you can move in and set up for a good position behind them.
On July 22 2014 17:14 worosei wrote: i dont think you can compare fungal and widow mines too well...
i feel fungal being a spell, and widow mines being a unit, makes the interaction and nuances too different to really compare cost/effect etc..
This post actually gave me an idea:
What if WM was changed so that it would become a caster now with energy, so essentially you would need to micro it, but on the other hand it would be able to shoot out like 3 or 4 rockets one after another if with full energy?
To strong, to hard to micro, what are your opinions?
That said, I think the mine is a reasonably balanced unit right now. A mine is costefficient when it hits 1baneling+1zergling, or 1zealot, which is nearly guaranteed. On average they kill much more stuff near instantly, while still tanking damage afterwards, sometimes even surviving and damaging other units.
Yes, it's reasonable balanced if races had similar production efficiency. But just like protoss in PvZ needs some "imba"-abilities/units vs zerg, so does terran need a unit that can make terran more cost-effective than it currently is.
Terran just needs the same amount of mining. They just need to be capable to match a 4th with a 4th and spend the whole money they get, not just the 4-5 of 8gas geysers. For that, Zergs capabilities to lock Terran on fewer bases should get tuned down and Terrans gas units need to serve a bigger purpose, regardless of playing bio or mech.
Protoss doesn't have "imba" abilities either. There is a massively different supply-mechanic in that matchup, that allows Protoss to mass its basic units while the Zerg eventually has to get rid of his Roaches/Zerglings, else at max its going to be a blink stalker per roach or 1immortal per 2roaches. But the same just doesn't apply to bio TvZ, there it is actually the reverse, which will forever stay a problem, unless the Terran can eventually mix in his own 100resource/supply units.
I think that balancing around an eternal midgame of trades is neither possible - the pushes are either going to be slightly too strong, or, more probable, they are still going to get figured out eventually - nor desirable - because then people are just going to do the same thing for 20,25,30mins, which does get old, regardless of how good it looks. I think the only way to really balance a game that complex for a long timeframe is to create some forms of counter-rotation. E.g. Terran eventually gets too many tanks/mines for banelings to get the hits on the marines, but then the marine count becomes lower, zerg can build more mutas, but then the Terran doesn't need as many tanks and switch more into thors, which then allows the zerg to mix in more ultras, which allows the Terran to go for the marauders, which forces the Zerg to trade his ultras off fast enough and go back into zerglings/banelings/mutas, etc...
This kind of rotation has been very weak in TvZ for a long time (like in years) now, and it shows in the form of Terran often having no answers to lategame Zerg and everything getting balanced around aggression that feels initially imbalanced, but after a while starts to get figured out and then Terran is fucked again because they are still lacking the units that can force the Zerg to change up his maxed composition (or those units just cannot be reached fast enough, like ravens).
For Siege tank/bio symmetry I believe there is no real fix in HOTS. Your just always gonna prefer either 4M or complete mech.
Imo this is a mutalisk problem. Back when mutalisks actually died, it was pretty risky to take down a tank, because you'd be weak in terms of combating and harassing for a long time. These days, you can gladly trade a mutalisk or two for a tank, because that's literally all the damage you take. That, and the simple fact that (low-mid amounts of) tanks are a much better counter to infestors than to banelings/ultras, but infestors aren't required anymore. So in WoL you knew there would eventually be a unit on the field that the tank was good against, while in HotS when you see tanks as Zerg, you just look at them and ask your opponent: "what is this supposed to do for you?"
Protoss doesn't have "imba" abilities either. There is a massively different supply-mechanic in that matchup, that allows Protoss to mass its basic units while the Zerg eventually has to get rid of his Roaches/Zerglings, else at max its going to be a blink stalker per roach or 1immortal per 2roaches. But the same just doesn't apply to bio TvZ, there it is actually the reverse, which will forever stay a problem, unless the Terran can eventually mix in his own 100resource/supply units.
Forcefields can be pretty insane.
the pushes are either going to be slightly too strong, or, more probable, they are still going to get figured out eventually
Would be true if creep spread didn't exist. However, the fact it has such an important effect on defenders advantage makes it quite easy to have games that go on. The only situations currently where we see games ending quickly is 1) Terran gets ahead early game and then snowballs 2) Zerg does a roach/hydra timing and wins 3) Terran overextends in the midgame on creep and gets too much behind and can be overrun offcreep.
But if both players just get slightly behind in midgame, then it's quite rarely that the game just suddenly ends.
Terran, however, does need a bit of a comeback unit in order to reward more back-and-forth. And stronger widow mine can help take down larger zerg armies that are poorly microed. And I don't see much risk in buffing the Widow Mine here, especially since we knew that it worked previously.
I think the only way to really balance a game that complex for a long timeframe is to create some forms of counter-rotation. E.g. Terran eventually gets too many tanks/mines for banelings to get the hits on the marines, but then the marine count becomes lower, zerg can build more mutas, but then the Terran doesn't need as many tanks and switch more into thors, which then allows the zerg to mix in more ultras, which allows the Terran to go for the marauders, which forces the Zerg to trade his ultras off fast enough and go back into zerglings/banelings/mutas, etc...
This kind of rotation has been very weak in TvZ for a long time (like in years) now, and it shows in the form of Terran often having no answers to lategame Zerg and everything getting balanced around aggression that feels initially imbalanced, but after a while starts to get figured out and then Terran is fucked again because they are still lacking the units that can force the Zerg to change up his maxed composition (or those units just cannot be reached fast enough, like ravens).
Would be desireable to work on that for LOTV. I guess it's possible that you can nerf Mutas and then Siege tanks + bio become viable, however, then I thikn it will just end up being a superior composition relative to 4M. I don't really feel that Siege tanks and Widow Mines complement each other enough in order to create that interesting a dynamic.
Thus, in my opinion I prefer the option of balacing bio around 4M as that IMO creates much faster faced gameplay than Siege Tank + bio. I think the better solution is to give zerg some kind of unit which Tanks are really good vs and mines/bio suffer against. Not sure infestor can be that unit, I prefer to make the Swarm Host more Lurker-oriented as I pointed out in my previous post.
On July 22 2014 17:14 worosei wrote: i dont think you can compare fungal and widow mines too well...
i feel fungal being a spell, and widow mines being a unit, makes the interaction and nuances too different to really compare cost/effect etc..
This post actually gave me an idea:
What if WM was changed so that it would become a caster now with energy, so essentially you would need to micro it, but on the other hand it would be able to shoot out like 3 or 4 rockets one after another if with full energy?
To strong, to hard to micro, what are your opinions?
good day, svizcy
It would just be another thing that will be feedbacked by templars. Like Medivacs, ghosts, BCs, Ravens (and back then, Thor... for no reason at all)
Imo. The easiest way to create good interaction between mine and tank would be to buff bunkers (via modification of the bunk upgrade) and maybe allow HB in bunks. That and of course buff tanks a little, not in brute power, but cost/supply etc... (I personally love the range buff someone mentioned earlier).
On July 22 2014 18:43 Hider wrote: Thus, in my opinion I prefer the option of balacing bio around 4M as that IMO creates much faster faced gameplay than Siege Tank + bio. I think the better solution is to give zerg some kind of unit which Tanks are really good vs and mines/bio suffer against. Not sure infestor can be that unit, I prefer to make the Swarm Host more Lurker-oriented as I pointed out in my previous post.
Tanks are good vs roach/hydra (can still get a slight improvement imo). Problem is that bio with marauders is too good against everything and also roach/hydra still. I pretty much am sure that the marauder should get removed in lotv. This would help alot to create weaknesses for bio while keeping the marine as it is. It can be reintroduced in lategame or bio can get smth new.
Tanks are good vs roach/hydra (can still get a slight improvement imo).
True, but the interaction just isn't that exciting. Basically it's just turtle with bio/tank untill you have critical mass, siege up and 1ta. Further, blinding cloud/abduct interaction vs Siege tank is also lame.
I think a better interaction vs Swarm host and siege tank would be a ton more fun to watch and play. Zerg would then be more in the defensive and wouldn't have map control in the same way as he has with Muta/bling or Roach/hydra. This way you could be more aggressive with Tanks and biological units in the midgame and use tanks to break zerg defensive position rather than to use tanks to turtle.
But instead, SH makes it possible for zerg to be really cost-effective vs heavy bio compositions in straight up engagements. So the terran is rewarded for sieging up to kill swarm hosts (and SH/locusts didn't have range to kill Siege tanks in siege mode).
As a response to the Siege Tank attacking the Swarm Host, the zerg could even resposition his Swarm Hosts to go further back when the terran sieged up. That would create a dynamic microinteraction.
Further, it would also create a bigger role for the Raven (as detector) along with the bio/tank army (though it's abilities still need to be changed a bit tbh).
I pretty much am sure that the marauder should get removed in lotv.
Please no.. Pure Marines in them selves are way too vulnerable against AOE, which creates too much splitsecond-oriented micro. Marauder has an important role in serving tank-shots. The weakness of Roach/hydra is supply efficiency. In the midgame when it maxes out (and terran is at like 150-160 supply), it's really really strong and all terran can do is too turtle. Contrary to common belief, Siege Tank in BW was never about turtling, but about breaking defensive positions.
squirtle says it correctly, even if t needs a buff vs banes etc and perhaps vs protoss, making the mines strong makes protoss just go colossus EVERY GAME ... then all falme "p always go deathball" but we FORCED to do it, because blizzad just removed the zealot/ht playstyle COMPLETLY from teh game (unplayable vs that strong mines + some hellbats )
its sad seeing strats removed by patched instead of buff something that would still allow p to play both strategys but makes terran overall stronger (cause mines then are rly useless vs colossi strats anyways)
what i see is that it can work vs z but it not helps terran vs p, just makes the games more boring
If this time warp nerf goes in, then you'd better fix the mothership too. It's useless now. Yes, it provides cloak but it's easy to snipe, and cost isn't justified anymore.
Seeing all these pro responses just makes me wonder how David Kim is coming up with these changes. Nothing even remotely suggests he is listening to the pros specific complaints.
i dont get all the discussion about nerfing or not nerfing marines slightly in the early game. early game marines are fine now (they were always fine, just horrible maps and OP rax before depot + OP bunker build time happened, no problem with marines themselves).
just nerf them in midgame = nerf one of the things that makes marines so insanely cost effective: medivacs, stim, combat shield. thats it. then finally there is room to buff stuff that works good with marines like tanks and buff lategame T. this would also make bio into biomech or mech or bioair or air or airmech whatever as a transition much easier with nerfed marines and buffed lategame units. some lategame units like BC/raven doesnt even need buffs itself but just faster build time. tanks need a buff, thors maybe need a slight speedbuff.
--> slightly nerf midgame marines and buff T lategame (dmg, buildtime, whatever)
On July 22 2014 23:13 Boonbag wrote: how many times did they patch this game already?
19times. But ~57.9% of those patches are just minor bug fixes etc. Balance patches: 8 in 1.5years. So much less frequently than most other RTS games (that on top of that do not need to be well balanced because they aren't esports), though of course HotS builds upon WoL, while a new game often builds upon nothing.
On July 22 2014 19:40 Drake wrote: squirtle says it correctly, even if t needs a buff vs banes etc and perhaps vs protoss, making the mines strong makes protoss just go colossus EVERY GAME ... then all falme "p always go deathball" but we FORCED to do it, because blizzad just removed the zealot/ht playstyle COMPLETLY from teh game (unplayable vs that strong mines + some hellbats )
its sad seeing strats removed by patched instead of buff something that would still allow p to play both strategys but makes terran overall stronger (cause mines then are rly useless vs colossi strats anyways)
what i see is that it can work vs z but it not helps terran vs p, just makes the games more boring
P were going deathball in WoL all that time before WM was ever introduced.
On July 23 2014 00:51 Decendos wrote: i dont get all the discussion about nerfing or not nerfing marines slightly in the early game. early game marines are fine now (they were always fine, just horrible maps and OP rax before depot + OP bunker build time happened, no problem with marines themselves).
just nerf them in midgame = nerf one of the things that makes marines so insanely cost effective: medivacs, stim, combat shield. thats it. then finally there is room to buff stuff that works good with marines like tanks and buff lategame T. this would also make bio into biomech or mech or bioair or air or airmech whatever as a transition much easier with nerfed marines and buffed lategame units. some lategame units like BC/raven doesnt even need buffs itself but just faster build time. tanks need a buff, thors maybe need a slight speedbuff.
--> slightly nerf midgame marines and buff T lategame (dmg, buildtime, whatever)
I don't get why people think that marines are too good. If they weren't able to get better over the course of the game with stim, and then with medivac, every terran would start with bio and tech switch into mech after, or just go straight mech. In other words, those units would be almost completely abandoned.
Like some pros pointed out, the entire problem of WM is that it kills T's own forces practically as well as it kills the enemy. The fact that it's a projectile weapon that tracks a target is a huge problem with splash radius precisely because it means that sling or mutas can pull those mines into your own forces. If you sit at a safe distance, your mines get picked off by mutas. If you try to stay close to protect them, they get pulled into your own army.
If WM was just a bouncing betty style explosive, it would be better.
On July 22 2014 19:40 Drake wrote: squirtle says it correctly, even if t needs a buff vs banes etc and perhaps vs protoss, making the mines strong makes protoss just go colossus EVERY GAME ... then all falme "p always go deathball" but we FORCED to do it, because blizzad just removed the zealot/ht playstyle COMPLETLY from teh game (unplayable vs that strong mines + some hellbats )
its sad seeing strats removed by patched instead of buff something that would still allow p to play both strategys but makes terran overall stronger (cause mines then are rly useless vs colossi strats anyways)
what i see is that it can work vs z but it not helps terran vs p, just makes the games more boring
P were going deathball in WoL all that time before WM was ever introduced.
On July 23 2014 00:51 Decendos wrote: i dont get all the discussion about nerfing or not nerfing marines slightly in the early game. early game marines are fine now (they were always fine, just horrible maps and OP rax before depot + OP bunker build time happened, no problem with marines themselves).
just nerf them in midgame = nerf one of the things that makes marines so insanely cost effective: medivacs, stim, combat shield. thats it. then finally there is room to buff stuff that works good with marines like tanks and buff lategame T. this would also make bio into biomech or mech or bioair or air or airmech whatever as a transition much easier with nerfed marines and buffed lategame units. some lategame units like BC/raven doesnt even need buffs itself but just faster build time. tanks need a buff, thors maybe need a slight speedbuff.
--> slightly nerf midgame marines and buff T lategame (dmg, buildtime, whatever)
I don't get why people think that marines are too good. If they weren't able to get better over the course of the game with stim, and then with medivac, every terran would start with bio and tech switch into mech after, or just go straight mech. In other words, those units would be almost completely abandoned.
Like some pros pointed out, the entire problem of WM is that it kills T's own forces practically as well as it kills the enemy. The fact that it's a projectile weapon that tracks a target is a huge problem with splash radius precisely because it means that sling or mutas can pull those mines into your own forces. If you sit at a safe distance, your mines get picked off by mutas. If you try to stay close to protect them, they get pulled into your own army.
If WM was just a bouncing betty style explosive, it would be better.
wheres the problem of switching from bio to mech or biomech or going straight mech. thats basically all T players want: more diversity and a better lategame. its pretty stupid to say "i want to play MMMM all game long and win vs everything the opponent throws at me". its much more fun and strategic if T has to transition and scout but to do that T needs better lategame to be able to transition.
On July 22 2014 07:55 VArsovskiSC wrote: *massive post snipped. it's on page 16.*
Much better use of quotation marks :D.
And I never thought of it that way. It kind of makes sense. You can do the ghost/HT dance which forces protoss to do stuff, baiting zealot charges forces protoss to do stuff, baiting forcefields forces protoss to do stuff, but you can't force protoss to do anything with their collosus.
It's way more beneficial to leave them firing when they're being targeted by vikings since vikings have such range that they will die anyway or you lose too much DPS. So leaving them be and focussing the vikings with your stalkers is your best bet.
On July 22 2014 17:14 worosei wrote: i dont think you can compare fungal and widow mines too well...
i feel fungal being a spell, and widow mines being a unit, makes the interaction and nuances too different to really compare cost/effect etc..
This post actually gave me an idea:
What if WM was changed so that it would become a caster now with energy, so essentially you would need to micro it, but on the other hand it would be able to shoot out like 3 or 4 rockets one after another if with full energy?
To strong, to hard to micro, what are your opinions?
good day, svizcy
It would just be another thing that will be feedbacked by templars. Like Medivacs, ghosts, BCs, Ravens (and back then, Thor... for no reason at all)
We have enough caster units already :/
What they should do is change feedback to only affect psionic units, the real caster units.
On July 22 2014 23:13 Boonbag wrote: how many times did they patch this game already?
19times. But ~57.9% of those patches are just minor bug fixes etc. Balance patches: 8 in 1.5years. So much less frequently than most other RTS games (that on top of that do not need to be well balanced because they aren't esports), though of course HotS builds upon WoL, while a new game often builds upon nothing.
On July 19 2014 09:43 CutTheEnemy wrote: Why not just re-buff the siege tank and make the battlecruiser viable and interesting? It would be nice to have unit composition options and a tier 3 for terrans.
The big picture though... LotV is already under development:
Can we help spread the word and create pressure to get Rob Pardo to replace Browder as head of Sc2? Pardo led the team for broodwar, frozen throne, and wow/BC. We need to make this a thing before LotV development starts. Think about it.
On July 19 2014 09:43 CutTheEnemy wrote: Why not just re-buff the siege tank and make the battlecruiser viable and interesting? It would be nice to have unit composition options and a tier 3 for terrans.
The big picture though... LotV is already under development:
Can we help spread the word and create pressure to get Rob Pardo to replace Browder as head of Sc2? Pardo led the team for broodwar, frozen throne, and wow/BC. We need to make this a thing before LotV development starts. Think about it.
NO, they're the best.. The bad part for SC2 happens when the game designer team goes on to another game and leaves Mr. Kim himself with a little-to-no-team at all :D
But maybe a change is never a bad thing TBH, would prefer to "know" the odds at/after Blizzcon..
And hopefully less BW influence, the game needs fresh start (no offense), not the same one we had ages ago
On July 19 2014 09:43 CutTheEnemy wrote: Why not just re-buff the siege tank and make the battlecruiser viable and interesting? It would be nice to have unit composition options and a tier 3 for terrans.
The big picture though... LotV is already under development:
Can we help spread the word and create pressure to get Rob Pardo to replace Browder as head of Sc2? Pardo led the team for broodwar, frozen throne, and wow/BC. We need to make this a thing before LotV development starts. Think about it.
NO, they're the best.. The bad part for SC2 happens when the game designer team goes on to another game and leaves Mr. Kim himself with little-to-no-team at all :D
I actually agree, someone should make a thread to defend DKim because he got a lot of hate and he isn't responsible about much of it. He isn't perfect but he has very little tools to help the game. #STOOPHATEDAVIDKIM
Terran will be unbeatable again =( . . especially in macro games..oh well.. i will not give up though..i will still try my very best in every game as a fellow Zerg =) ..it was fine all but with the buff's that they are giving for free to Hellbats aggression and Widow mine play ..oh dear..
On July 26 2014 09:04 aer351 wrote: Where can I see Avilo's unnecessary, overly dramatic, and entirely stupid whine about this patch?
LOL, I think for the first time in history, Avilo will NOT complain about a patch, although who knows, he is pretty good about finding a reason to whine even when Terran gets buffed....maybe like...
On July 26 2014 09:04 aer351 wrote: Where can I see Avilo's unnecessary, overly dramatic, and entirely stupid whine about this patch?
LOL, I think for the first time in history, Avilo will NOT complain about a patch, although who knows, he is pretty good about finding a reason to whine even when Terran gets buffed....maybe like...
"wtf 10 second time warp? Why not 5?" :-P
He whined that the potential change to make caduceus reactor massively increase healing per second output was a nerf because the increase cost made it useless for faking cloak research.
On July 26 2014 09:04 aer351 wrote: Where can I see Avilo's unnecessary, overly dramatic, and entirely stupid whine about this patch?
LOL, I think for the first time in history, Avilo will NOT complain about a patch, although who knows, he is pretty good about finding a reason to whine even when Terran gets buffed....maybe like...
"wtf 10 second time warp? Why not 5?" :-P
He whined that the potential change to make caduceus reactor massively increase healing per second output was a nerf because the increase cost made it useless for faking cloak research.
Avilo hasn't said a word yet. You guys are just bashing him.
On July 26 2014 09:04 aer351 wrote: Where can I see Avilo's unnecessary, overly dramatic, and entirely stupid whine about this patch?
LOL, I think for the first time in history, Avilo will NOT complain about a patch, although who knows, he is pretty good about finding a reason to whine even when Terran gets buffed....maybe like...
"wtf 10 second time warp? Why not 5?" :-P
He whined that the potential change to make caduceus reactor massively increase healing per second output was a nerf because the increase cost made it useless for faking cloak research.
Avilo hasn't said a word yet. You guys are just bashing him.
Someone brought him up, I'm just pointing out his history to suggest that people stop bringing him up.
On July 26 2014 09:04 aer351 wrote: Where can I see Avilo's unnecessary, overly dramatic, and entirely stupid whine about this patch?
LOL, I think for the first time in history, Avilo will NOT complain about a patch, although who knows, he is pretty good about finding a reason to whine even when Terran gets buffed....maybe like...
"wtf 10 second time warp? Why not 5?" :-P
He whined that the potential change to make caduceus reactor massively increase healing per second output was a nerf because the increase cost made it useless for faking cloak research.
Avilo hasn't said a word yet. You guys are just bashing him.
Someone brought him up, I'm just pointing out his history to suggest that people stop bringing him up.
Oh I see, I must have misunderstood your intent when your post read that Avilo 'whined'.
On July 26 2014 09:04 aer351 wrote: Where can I see Avilo's unnecessary, overly dramatic, and entirely stupid whine about this patch?
LOL, I think for the first time in history, Avilo will NOT complain about a patch, although who knows, he is pretty good about finding a reason to whine even when Terran gets buffed....maybe like...
"wtf 10 second time warp? Why not 5?" :-P
He whined that the potential change to make caduceus reactor massively increase healing per second output was a nerf because the increase cost made it useless for faking cloak research.
Avilo hasn't said a word yet. You guys are just bashing him.
Someone brought him up, I'm just pointing out his history to suggest that people stop bringing him up.
Oh I see, I must have misunderstood your intent when your post read that Avilo 'whined'.
He's mostly treated as a side-show. I agree with you that he shouldn't have been brought up. Let's just say he's done dumb things in the past but we shouldn't be giving him attention for the mere possibility that he does dumb things in the future. It's not nice, regardless of whether he deserves it, and frankly he doesn't really deserve the attention at all.
what blizzard needs to do is reduce spawn broodlings from 150 energy to 100 or even 75 energy in brood war to make them more effective and worth using since you gotta get a queens nest anyways to tech to hive you might as well make them some what effective in sniping templars. also revamp bnet with match matching and ladder lol sc2 is ugly game
I don't post much these days, but I hate this idea. I hate the entire concept of widow mines. I think it ruins the game, and I think putting them back in will ruin it more at least for casual non-terran players which Blizzard seems not to care about at all.
The widow mine is the infestor - a poorly executed stop gap that screws the game up and is no fun to play against. I guess for the lulz it's amusing to watch, but who wants to play a game that amuses only trolls?
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/images/race/SC2T10.png)
EG_Xenocider: I think the widow mine splash radius is good, however Zerg over time has learned to neutralize widow mine shots. It will require testing to see whether the radius buff actually has an impact. If it works, then it can help address the problem T has (lack of T AoE vs Banes)..![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/images/race/SC2Z10.png)
BBoongBBoong: It's better than not having it but I don't think this will help out Terrans at all from the late game bio unit composition problems they're facing.![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/images/race/SC2P10.png)
mYi_StarDust: I'm not sure. I know that Terrans need a buff, but I'm worried that this may make them too strong. I won't know for sure until I play first. What I know for sure is that it will be even more difficult to utilize zealot plays and this will force out even more colossi-related openings. Actually, since the widow mine is useless once the Protoss has secured a certain composition, this will only buff the early and mid game for Terran, and do nothing for late game.![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/random-small.gif)
mYi_Balloon: Widow mines are not good at all in TvZ so I felt that a patch was necessary. I think they did a good job. I haven't played any games with this new patch yet so I have no idea how much stronger widow mines got but I think they did an appropriate patch. But the problem with Terran is the late-game stage, so I think that this patch made the mid-game stronger for Terran so that late-game will become easier. Even though they didn't improve Terran late-game, I still think that the patch was a good call.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xpahLJF.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.theuen.com/images/archon.jpg)
