|
Can we please ban people that talk like this for once? At the moment Terran representation is #1 or #2 all across the board in Master and GM Leagues. Diamond the same. Overall Terran is leading in all of those stats. It's hilarious, even at these times when Terran is obviously doing very well across the board we have retards that try to uphold the myth - a myth that origined from a time when Terran was plainly too weak, i.e. BL/Infestor time - that somehow Terran is too hard to play if you are not a Code S championship contender.
At this point it's like creationism I guess, stupidity has won and is spreading itself further.
A few things to consider:
- Most everyone acknowledges that the Liberator is too strong;
- The tankivac will probably be nerfed in some way; and
- Bio multitask and micro has generally been considered by most as one of the hardest things to master in the game. A lot of the success of Terran right now with the Liberator removed would be due to this type of play, when you consider the very highest level.
What I am suggesting is that if foreigners are to have the same chance with Terran as with Protoss/Zerg at the highest level of (foreigner) play, it's going to be difficult with the current cyclone/tank/thor and a nerfed liberator. Basically, they are going to have to execute what Polt did this weekend and try to crush their opponents with bio control/multi-task. When was the last time that a Terran foreigner took any tournament from Polt/Taeja-esque MMM control?
Sorry, I cannot recall. I remember some foreigner tournament wins by Snute, Stephano, Naniwa, Lilbow - but can't quite remember any Terran winning from MMM. If we could see it happen today, I would bet that it would be through some nasty liberator action combined with MMM - but that will not survive the next patch.
If Terran factory/starport units (other than liberator) are not adjusted to be as strong as their Zerg/Protoss equivalents in the mid/late game, Terran may be considered a balanced race in Code S, but for most that play the game it may remain a more challenging race to hit as high a ladder rating, etc.
|
No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio. Bio is stronger than P and Z units of equivalent tech and cost level. Ever seen a Zerg win with nothing but Speedling/Roach vs MMMM+Tank and/or Liberator? Probably only as an all-in, but never in a macro game. The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
Edit: Since WoL release Bio has been able to punch way above its weight. That's why Mech has to remain shit, otherwise Bio+Tank would be crazy strong.
|
On March 07 2016 22:11 PressureSC2 wrote:Show nested quote + Can we please ban people that talk like this for once? At the moment Terran representation is #1 or #2 all across the board in Master and GM Leagues. Diamond the same. Overall Terran is leading in all of those stats. It's hilarious, even at these times when Terran is obviously doing very well across the board we have retards that try to uphold the myth - a myth that origined from a time when Terran was plainly too weak, i.e. BL/Infestor time - that somehow Terran is too hard to play if you are not a Code S championship contender.
At this point it's like creationism I guess, stupidity has won and is spreading itself further.
A few things to consider: - Most everyone acknowledges that the Liberator is too strong; - The tankivac will probably be nerfed in some way; and - Bio multitask and micro has generally been considered by most as one of the hardest things to master in the game. A lot of the success of Terran right now with the Liberator removed would be due to this type of play, when you consider the very highest level. What I am suggesting is that if foreigners are to have the same chance with Terran as with Protoss/Zerg at the highest level of (foreigner) play, it's going to be difficult with the current cyclone/tank/thor and a nerfed liberator. Basically, they are going to have to execute what Polt did this weekend and try to crush their opponents with bio control/multi-task. When was the last time that a Terran foreigner took any tournament from Polt/Taeja-esque MMM control? Sorry, I cannot recall. I remember some foreigner tournament wins by Snute, Stephano, Naniwa, Lilbow - but can't quite remember any Terran winning from MMM. If we could see it happen today, I would bet that it would be through some nasty liberator action combined with MMM - but that will not survive the next patch. If Terran factory/starport units (other than liberator) are not adjusted to be as strong as their Zerg/Protoss equivalents in the mid/late game, Terran may be considered a balanced race in Code S, but for most that play the game it may remain a more challenging race to hit as high a ladder rating, etc.
Sorry, but this is exactly the bullshit i'm talking about.
"Most everyone acknowledges"
who? where are the stats supporting that?
Liberators have been nerfed in the beta to a level so that now they are fine. If you still think liberators are too strong just because Terran doesn't just roll over at the 12 min mark against Protoss, maybe get out of your HotS mindset. Lots of units are much stronger than other units in the game, unless they clearly break the game, I don't see how you can put the blame on liberators for anything at the moment.
I have no clue about tank drops being nerfed or not. The last message on it sounded rather like they want to keep the concept, possibly nerf the shot-delay further but additionally buff tanks anyways.
If you think that bio is so hard, maybe look up some 2010-2011 gameplay. Everyone was playing bio and Terran was broken as fuck. The people regurgitating this on the forums are nearly all Terrans.
Stephano, Snute and Naniwa won all the way back in WoL which makes me wonder how you can remember them but "can't remember" e.g.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012_DreamHack_Open/Stockholm
10 days after Stephano's last Premier win over a Korean. + Show Spoiler +he only won one more Premier, the WCS EU 2012 at the height of BL/Infestor - if you think BL/Infestor was because bio was soooo hard, I don't even know what to tell you
In HotS we had a grand total of 2 foreigners winning Premiers, Sen and Lilbow, and in LotV one so far, PtitDrogo. The next best foreigner win in HotS - which for some reason wasn't classified as a Premier despite the price money, the line up and being played offline - went to... a bio Terran: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Gfinity_G3
You can look all across the 2015-16 WCS tournaments, Terran representation in the foreign scene was pretty much at the same level as Protoss representation, behind Zerg though. Bunny made two semi-finals in 2015, only being stopped by the WCS-winners of those seasons (Polt and Lilbow). MarineLord had some strong showings as the last standing foreigner in tournaments at the end of 2015 and the Korean stomp in NationWars recently.
|
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote:
No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio. Bio is stronger than P and Z units of equivalent tech and cost level. Ever seen a Zerg win with nothing but Speedling/Roach vs MMMM+Tank and/or Liberator? Probably only as an all-in, but never in a macro game. The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
Edit: Since WoL release Bio has been able to punch way above its weight. That's why Mech has to remain shit, otherwise Bio+Tank would be crazy strong.
I see much bias here... It is true that mmm is and was always strong. But it is NOT t1. You need techlabs, factory, starport, reactors and 3 upgrades that is definetly at least t2.
|
On March 07 2016 23:22 SpecKROELLchen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote:
No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio. Bio is stronger than P and Z units of equivalent tech and cost level. Ever seen a Zerg win with nothing but Speedling/Roach vs MMMM+Tank and/or Liberator? Probably only as an all-in, but never in a macro game. The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
Edit: Since WoL release Bio has been able to punch way above its weight. That's why Mech has to remain shit, otherwise Bio+Tank would be crazy strong. I see much bias here... It is true that mmm is and was always strong. But it is NOT t1. You need techlabs, factory, starport, reactors and 3 upgrades that is definetly at least t2.
Well, I didn't say that it was T1, but it is not T3 either. Getting the infrastructure and those upgrades is most certainly easier and less costly than getting P/Z T3 to combat Bio.
|
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote:
No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio.
Is this not what I am saying? So long as MMM is too strong in the right hands, Terran's tier 2/3 units can never be allowed to go head to head (without MMM) against any Protoss/Zerg higher tier army because the game as a whole would become unbalanced when you add support to bio.
Time will tell. If the Liberator gets a significant nerf - I am wondering exactly what Terran has obtained in LOTV that allows the race to win those mid/end game battles. Marauders get reduced effectiveness, Broods/Ultras get improvements.
Also, other than the Liberator, it doesn't seem that we can produce anything without MMM out of both the factory and the starport that can play the late game in Code A or Code S. I am not seeing any 200/200 Terran armies based on any significant BC or Banshee play with new LOTV fusion core play/units.
If Protoss had been changed in LOTV to nullify Robotics and Stargate in the late game (other than Warp Prism), and require Zealot/Stalker and Warp Prism mainly in your 200/200 Protoss Army (but only with the right hands) to win anything at GSL level - I figure you would have a lot of upset Protoss players asking why these changes were deemed to be in the best interest of SC2 especially for its last expansion.
Immortals, Archons, Pheonix, Tempest, Colossus were also interesting to spectate in HOTS GSL, as the Cyclone, Thor, BC, Banshee, Raven could be in those 200/200 LOTV end-game exchanges. But according to the logic of some, they should never be because MMM is too strong.
It's not that big of a deal for me because I do enjoy playing the three races. However, I think that it is kind of sad for the game as a whole considering that this is the last expansion. Many other design issues were acknowledged and changed to some degree (pylon warp-ins, chrono boost, rarely seeing Nydus in higher level play, Carriers being completely irrelevant in pro play). Terran fusion core gets some potential reasons to see it built in LOTV, but we may almost never see it built in pro play to access the stronger BC/Banshee.
|
|
|
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote:
The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
It used to happen frequently, but now? I don't remember the last time I saw someone on the highest level beat even T2 Protoss without liberators (or at the very least siege tanks), and just bio/medivac beating a T3 Zerg army is out of the question.
|
Time will tell. If the Liberator gets a significant nerf - I am wondering exactly what Terran has obtained in LOTV that allows the race to win those mid/end game battles. Marauders get reduced effectiveness, Broods/Ultras get improvements.
Also, other than the Liberator, it doesn't seem that we can produce anything without MMM out of both the factory and the starport that can play the late game in Code A or Code S. I am not seeing any 200/200 Terran armies based on any significant BC or Banshee play with new LOTV fusion core play/units.
TvZ is very changed as a whole at the moment. Ling based playstyles as they were prevalent in WoL and HotS don't look nearly as potent, which cuts into zerg gas and mobility. Units like Tanks can shine much more and 10+ tanks (see e.g. Polt vs Firecake or Polt vs Snute) are much more potent in bio-playstyles than HotS bio/mine.
Liberators and ghosts have seen quite some play and seem to be somewhat potent in the lategame.
Besides those obvious changes, the larva nerf and the 12 worker start both help bio in the midgame in my opinion, which is the reason why zerg also relies on more potent units (ravagers and ultras) and less of an economic advantage (in HotS you'd rush 75-80 drones on 4 bases very fast; in LotV you probably die to everything when you try) than in previous game version. Which also means that once lategame hits, zerg doesn't just overwhelm you with 3-4 mining bases to 2, but chances are good that both races are struggling to keep a 2-3 base economy.
Though I don't think that bio is able to easily take it to the lategame still. There is only so much a balanced game can allow an aggressive playstyle to get away with. But that doesn't say anything about balance or "difficulty" (which in principle just a certain balance aspect).
Immortals, Archons, Pheonix, Tempest, Colossus were also interesting to spectate in HOTS GSL, as the Cyclone, Thor, BC, Banshee, Raven could be in those 200/200 LOTV end-game exchanges. But according to the logic of some, they should never be because MMM is too strong.
You are just cherrypicking units that get played in the lategame vs units that don't get played. Let's replace that Protoss list with Phoenix, Oracle, Carrier, Voidray, Mothership. That's your equivalent to Cyclone, Thor, BC, Banshee, Raven at the Protoss side. Cyclone and Banshee both see as many appearances as oracles or phoenixes by the way, just not in the lategame. Sure the other races play more of their higher tier units usually, though that is already skipping the fact that medivacs are rather high tech units too, the only unit with higher tech requirements on the Terran side is the BC.
I don't know what exactly you are arguing for by the way. Any race builds up certain production during the game, to solve problems that can happen at any given time. Lategame is obviously dictated by your previous production choices. In the Terran case, if you want to be allowed to play an aggressive playstyle that relies mostly on barracks, that means your lategame will be mostly barracks units. That doesn't mean you don't play the other units and in particular reactored starports or the slow addition of extra factories are currently wide-spread, but yes, with 7 barracks the bulk of your army will be the the 2-3 useful bio units, while a Protoss on Gateways will have ~6 different units as the bulk of his army.
That is the basic drawback of bio and why a lot of people say bio would be broken if it could easily mix in tons of other units. You have a playstyle that commits heavily to barracks production and aggression and may win in the midgame by attacking, while the opponent often can only survive till later and makes many investments that do not directly pay off, but then you want to get an equivalent army later as well. That's kind of imbalanced in my opinion. For any attacking playstyle, there is always going to be the drawback that it isn't as potent later on if the opponent defends it well if the winchances overall should be equal.
|
Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport (for Medivacs most of the time, as support for MM) to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here.
|
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote:
No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio. Bio is stronger than P and Z units of equivalent tech and cost level. Ever seen a Zerg win with nothing but Speedling/Roach vs MMMM+Tank and/or Liberator? Probably only as an all-in, but never in a macro game. The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
Edit: Since WoL release Bio has been able to punch way above its weight. That's why Mech has to remain shit, otherwise Bio+Tank would be crazy strong.
In the unit tester, most of gateway based armies beat pure MMM in direct fights with same upgrades and same cost for army quite handily.
|
On March 08 2016 00:39 Big J wrote:
Cyclone and Banshee both see as many appearances as oracles or phoenixes by the way
For the record, is that statement based on actual data? Because I have a hard time believing that, considering the cyclone and the banshee each have a matchup where they're not used at all, without being all too common in the other ones. Would be really strange if they ended appearing as often.
|
My guess is he meant void rays, we see plenty of phenixes in both match-up these days
|
On March 08 2016 00:39 PressureSC2 wrote:
Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here.
Well, if you are talking about making some fundamentally different playstyles viable I'm all ears. But I don't think we should change bio play too much just in favor of that at the moment. I think a lot of players are enjoying it and it makes for good games as it is.
But yeah, surely the factory based lower tier units hellions and hellbats could use quite some tweaks, the cyclone discussion blizzard tried to start, i.e. more supply, more costefficiency, is interesting if you try to play something that doesn't have access to mass marines/marauders for that job. Tank drop changes and tank buffs are still lingering, but have to be done carefully so they don't mess up the current bio-play. Thor anti-air changes may be worth considering again, though I think that both, the original blizzard suggestion and in particular the avilo-suggestion go way overboard and have as much potential for hardcore turtling as they have for "aggressive Mech play" in TvZ. Banshee speed may be interesting to see changed, possibly to a lower tier requirement.
The list of things that can be done without altering bio is quite long.
|
On March 08 2016 00:53 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 00:39 Big J wrote:
Cyclone and Banshee both see as many appearances as oracles or phoenixes by the way For the record, is that statement based on actual data? Because I have a hard time believing that, considering the cyclone and the banshee each have a matchup where they're not used at all, without being all too common in the other ones. Would be really strange if they ended appearing as often.
No, no data. But phoenixes aren't all too common in PvP either as much as I understand and oracles seem to be a bit on and off in PvP and PvZ. But yeah, you are right, they probably appear a little more often. I guess my point is rather that you can play banshees and cyclones in two matchups basically at will. If you don't see them there, it's by choice, not because they are useless.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 08 2016 00:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 00:39 PressureSC2 wrote:
Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here. Well, if you are talking about making some fundamentally different playstyles viable I'm all ears. But I don't think we should change bio play too much just in favor of that at the moment. I think a lot of players are enjoying it and it makes for good games as it is. But yeah, surely the factory based lower tier units hellions and hellbats could use quite some tweaks, the cyclone discussion blizzard tried to start, i.e. more supply, more costefficiency, is interesting if you try to play something that doesn't have access to mass marines/marauders for that job. Tank drop changes and tank buffs are still lingering, but have to be done carefully so they don't mess up the current bio-play. Thor anti-air changes may be worth considering again, though I think that both, the original blizzard suggestion and in particular the avilo-suggestion go way overboard and have as much potential for hardcore turtling as they have for "aggressive Mech play" in TvZ. Banshee speed may be interesting to see changed, possibly to a lower tier requirement. The list of things that can be done without altering bio is quite long.
In the end the problem is that there is hard to find an upgrade to mech that won't boost defensive mech. And we all know that some players are passive(Rain) and some are aggressive(Maru - and even Maru played one of the biggest turtlefests of the last season!).
|
On March 08 2016 00:59 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 00:55 Big J wrote:On March 08 2016 00:39 PressureSC2 wrote:
Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here. Well, if you are talking about making some fundamentally different playstyles viable I'm all ears. But I don't think we should change bio play too much just in favor of that at the moment. I think a lot of players are enjoying it and it makes for good games as it is. But yeah, surely the factory based lower tier units hellions and hellbats could use quite some tweaks, the cyclone discussion blizzard tried to start, i.e. more supply, more costefficiency, is interesting if you try to play something that doesn't have access to mass marines/marauders for that job. Tank drop changes and tank buffs are still lingering, but have to be done carefully so they don't mess up the current bio-play. Thor anti-air changes may be worth considering again, though I think that both, the original blizzard suggestion and in particular the avilo-suggestion go way overboard and have as much potential for hardcore turtling as they have for "aggressive Mech play" in TvZ. Banshee speed may be interesting to see changed, possibly to a lower tier requirement. The list of things that can be done without altering bio is quite long. In the end the problem is that there is hard to find an upgrade to mech that won't boost defensive mech. And we all know that some players are passive(Rain) and some are aggressive(Maru - and even Maru played one of the biggest turtlefests of the last season!).
I have to disagree with this somewhat. I think in the history of SC2 the real turtlestyles have always been styles that could rely on a nearly unbeatable army with incredibly supplyefficiency. (historically: old Infestor, Broodlords pre-Tempest/void ray buff, Swarm Hosts, Tempests to some degree, old ghosts, old (?) ravens, BCs to a small degree, templar to some degree)
I think if you are really willing to put a Mech playstyle into the game you can do so by working with low-midtier units (hellion, hellbat, tank, cyclone, banshee) and possibly - just possibly if required, and that can be awaited - nerfing the supply of the very few lategame units that possibly reward you for maxing out and then still not moving out but keeping on replacing worse with better units.
Like, the implications of making a spellcaster 3 supply instead of two is actually not that big for a style that is active anyhow because you don't really build up your composition as much and you often just stay under max. But if you had like 200/200 Mech and Ravens and Ghosts and both have taken a supply nerf, and if the buffs to make the playstyle viable are all on the units that you would usually want to get rid of in the lategame - hellbats, hellions, cyclones, banshees - then you obviously do not profit as much from just sitting around anymore. Alternatively the buffs could be on the infrastructure, e.g. buff build times, drop costs of armories slightly. + Show Spoiler +Also the same can be done to other races' units, e.g. the Tempest or the Broodlord would be prime examples of units that could possibly be adjusted in supplies if necessary for such a playstyle.
Obviously though, you may have to nerf units that are not problematic in bio-play and many aren't even played anyways, which is what blizzard does not want to do I think. But I think those nerfs are or could be insignificant for the normal Terran playstyle. It's really about experimenting a bit and then just trying something as blizzard in my opinion. As we say in German, from nothing comes nothing. 
|
On March 08 2016 01:16 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 00:59 deacon.frost wrote:On March 08 2016 00:55 Big J wrote:On March 08 2016 00:39 PressureSC2 wrote:
Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here. Well, if you are talking about making some fundamentally different playstyles viable I'm all ears. But I don't think we should change bio play too much just in favor of that at the moment. I think a lot of players are enjoying it and it makes for good games as it is. But yeah, surely the factory based lower tier units hellions and hellbats could use quite some tweaks, the cyclone discussion blizzard tried to start, i.e. more supply, more costefficiency, is interesting if you try to play something that doesn't have access to mass marines/marauders for that job. Tank drop changes and tank buffs are still lingering, but have to be done carefully so they don't mess up the current bio-play. Thor anti-air changes may be worth considering again, though I think that both, the original blizzard suggestion and in particular the avilo-suggestion go way overboard and have as much potential for hardcore turtling as they have for "aggressive Mech play" in TvZ. Banshee speed may be interesting to see changed, possibly to a lower tier requirement. The list of things that can be done without altering bio is quite long. In the end the problem is that there is hard to find an upgrade to mech that won't boost defensive mech. And we all know that some players are passive(Rain) and some are aggressive(Maru - and even Maru played one of the biggest turtlefests of the last season!). I have to disagree with this somewhat. I think in the history of SC2 the real turtlestyles have always been styles that could rely on a nearly unbeatable army with incredibly supplyefficiency. (historically: old Infestor, Broodlords pre-Tempest/void ray buff, Swarm Hosts, Tempests to some degree, old ghosts, old (?) ravens, BCs to a small degree, templar to some degree) I think if you are really willing to put a Mech playstyle into the game you can do so by working with low-midtier units (hellion, hellbat, tank, cyclone, banshee) and possibly - just possibly if required, and that can be awaited - nerfing the supply of the very few lategame units that possibly reward you for maxing out and then still not moving out but keeping on replacing worse with better units. Like, the implications of making a spellcaster 3 supply instead of two is actually not that big for a style that is active anyhow because you don't really build up your composition as much and you often just stay under max. But if you had like 200/200 Mech and Ravens and Ghosts and both have taken a supply nerf, and if the buffs to make the playstyle viable are all on the units that you would usually want to get rid of in the lategame - hellbats, hellions, cyclones, banshees - then you obviously do not profit as much from just sitting around anymore. + Show Spoiler +Also the same can be done to other races' units, e.g. the Tempest or the Broodlord would be prime examples of units that could possibly be adjusted in supplies if necessary for such a playstyle. Obviously though, you may have to nerf units that are not problematic in bio-play and many aren't even played anyways, which is what blizzard does not want to do I think. But I think those nerfs are or could be insignificant for the normal Terran playstyle. It's really about experimenting a bit and then just trying something as blizzard in my opinion. As we say in German, from nothing comes nothing.
Ravens were nerfed pretty big specially for turtle scenarios, turrets and PDDs lasted so long back then that they even lasted more time than what it took a raven to have enough energy for PDD (wich basically meant infinite PDDs) now they last so little they are barely there for a fight.
Ghost, are weird they are strong and they are aren't both at the same time, the mechanic work in a way now thay you can either take an entire zerg army without losing almost noting or lose all your units without killing anything.
BCs are shit, they may be a bit better now, but they're still shit.
Liberators are probably the strongest thing there is for that, they are way too good at way to many things at once.
However if theres anything that could be problematic that can be addressed later.
But I agree, just looking at the make games historically you can see the diference, the games that where turtle fest (like reality vs soulkey) included massive amounts of vikings and ravens, the games that where amazing and agressive (like Life vs ForGG) used banshees, hellbats, tanks, thors and vikings.
All you have to do is look at the good games and see what they had that was different from the bad games.
|
On March 08 2016 00:21 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote:
The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
It used to happen frequently, but now? I don't remember the last time I saw someone on the highest level beat even T2 Protoss without liberators (or at the very least siege tanks), and just bio/medivac beating a T3 Zerg army is out of the question.
You simply don't see Protoss tier 3 that often now. The only lategame units worth getting are HTs/archons/tempests, the rest are just too bad to build against terran or in general (disruptors, collo, carriers).
Meanwhile tier one got quite better thanks to the adept. So games end often without protoss getting tier 3 (either winning or losing on tier 2).
Onto another topic: IMO the huge numbers of zergs compared to protoss in masters league doesn't only talk about balance. The big number of important activated abilities on the protoss units makes army control rather difficult (adept shade, stalker blink, disruptor shots, HT storms, sentry FF/shield, MSC spells). For me Zerg has replaced Protoss as the easiest race to play.
|
I am not suggesting that bio should go out of style. In fact, I would hope that it remains as good a strategy as anything else at any pro level and it should probably remain the very best style for Terran at the highest level.
However, it would also be interesting if jaws would not drop every time a Terran player builds more than two factories or two starports, or goes double armory instead of double engineering bay at the pro level. Maybe it could be less frequent or less desirable the majority of the time, but hopefully not jaw dropping to see a few Korean Terrans to play other than bio for a few games in every large tournament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
