|
Please DISCUSS the changes and the impact they will have on gameplay.
Straight up whining and bitching will get you a ban, no exceptions. |
On February 13 2012 00:11 BeeNu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 23:47 The KY wrote:On February 12 2012 23:25 BeeNu wrote:On February 12 2012 22:58 The KY wrote:On February 12 2012 22:43 Recognizable wrote:On February 12 2012 22:28 The KY wrote:On February 12 2012 22:20 TechSc2 wrote:On February 12 2012 22:14 Jimmy Raynor wrote:
They should stop nerfing the late game of the race with the weakest late game. Find a way to reduce terran's efficiency early game and buff the tier 3 units weakest late game? herp derp my zerg opponent has a 6000 gas army and i will wipe it out with 4000 gas worth of ghost and not loose a single ghost. That's what the snipe nerf is about. Ever seen pro's only mass ghosts lategame against zerg? simply because they could cloak, snipe the overseer in 3 shots and then just snipe/normal attack everything to death without casualties. Stop whining terrans. It's not like you can't produce ghosts anymore and you really should get out of your own world off 60% winratio's and not complain I can agree with stop whining, but.. http://imgur.com/a/hQHYSThat's funny, seems like at least for the last year Terrans haven't had a winrate above 60% except for one month in Korea. The days of 'terran op' are behind us, but I suppose it'll be another year yet before people stop talking about them like they're completely broken. Yet almost nobody whines about ZvP being absolutely broken. Is it absolutely broken? Or are zergs just going through a period of slight dominance which is completely expected and natural in an asymmetrical RTS? Wait, Zergs are the ones slightly dominant? Please do tell how exactly Zergs are dominating over Protoss because I have seen nothing of the sort. The only thing I think you could be referring to is Mutalisks being difficult to deal with but that's about it, aside from that there is still a plethora of incredibly powerful Protoss tactics that work perfectly fine. Heck, just yesterday I saw a top masters Zerg get beaten by a platinum Protoss player who simply 6 gated, yeah....not even exagerating one bit. What I'm referring to is the statistics I linked earlier in this discussion, just click the spoiler tags. International tournament winrates for ZvP in the month of January 2012; 58.8%. In Korea it's 55. The fact that a masters player got beat in one game means literally nothing to me. I beat a masters protoss when I was in plat...it's one game. It sounds like you're a zerg who just doesn't want to accept that not everyone is being beat by protoss (and trust me, I can relate), but it's ironic because my point was that zerg is not OP just because they have a high winrate in this match up right now. It's not that, it's just that I've seen a lot of Zerg players [progamers too] express difficulty and utter confusion in how to win ZvP at all without just going all-in and hoping shit works out. Like sure, I can probably beat Protoss somewhere around 50% of the time maybe even better than that, but I honestly have not beaten a Protoss in a macro game in months, at some point in the game now I just go all-in and kill them some way or another. My point was just that statistically sure Zerg might be fine right now and have a slight advantage but in terms of metagame I think Protoss are completely dominant right now if they just learn to not get taken surprise by the more popular all-in strats. The only thing Zergs have going for them heavily in their favor right now is Mutas but the next patch will even that out and Zergs are going to have their backs against the wall for a while and be almost soley getting their wins from all-in strategies much like how Protoss used to get their wins vs Zerg. Maybe I'm completely wrong and crazy though, but that's what I see happening right now.
I don't feel that this is true at all, in fact I can't remember any progamer zergs winning ZvPs with all ins since Leenock beat Naniwa in the MLG finals.
|
I feel the game is becoming way to black or white (hard counters). There are less and less gray units. This is why we always hear "hes doing an all in" these days, even if players have 2 or even 3 bases.
I think something is really wrong with the design and it's really limiting the gameplay.
|
High Master Terran on Europe here, sometimes playing GMs. Since I'm usually only a spectator for the PvZ match-up, I will not talk about the Phoenix change.
MULEs now harvest the same amount of minerals on both high yield minerals and normal minerals.
This change is somewhat ok, though gold and MULE-haters should remember that Terran players gain little “more” by taking their fourth and fifth bases, unlike Zergs and Protosses who have then access to their precious 8/10 gases to build gas-heavy powerful units en masse. Since Terran do not benefit as much as the other races from 8/10 gases compared to 6 gases, is it that imbalanced that they're rewarded with a temporary income boost in the ressource that matters the most for them, i.e. minerals? People should remember that faster mining also means the base will be mined out earlier than normal, which means Terrans will have to (over)extend again to maintain the same income, something which is not easy to do on some maps. Now, talking about maps—I think this is the main issue with gold bases. Take Antiga for instance; gold bases were removed in recent tournament versions: did it change anything to the fact that, in ZvT, once the Terran player controls the center, the Zerg player is in deep trouble anyway?
Snipe damage changed from 45 to 25 +25 Psionic
This is a terrible and very poorly thought change. As long as neither flying Banelings (read: Ravens) nor BattleCruisers are really viable, Terrans will still need some kind of “universal unit” against Zerg tier3. Reasons are known—thanks to the way their race works, Zergs are able to remax on Ultralisks after they've traded their Broodlords, and vice versa. Since Vikings don't do well against Ultralisks, nor Marauders are particularly hot against Broodlords, and with Terran having the slowest production in the game, the Zerg possibility to tech switch in a little more than a minut (55 sec for Ultralisks, 74 for Broodlords) without the Terran being able to know which unit the Zerg chose until he sees eggs spawning (this is of the utmost importance, because it means Terran is forced to wait at least 40 sec before starting his “counter units”) means that Terrans have to be able to rely on units that are good against one option, and at least “ok” against the other option—not to mention that at this point, Zergs should have banked enough larvae to be able to quickly build a Zergling swarm.
Thors are somewhat ok against both Broodlords and Ultralisks, but their anti-air low rate of fire simply prevents them from killing Broodlords efficiently, especially with Queens being able to negate many shots in a single Transfuse. Besides, Thors are slow to replenish, and they cost 6 supply whereas Broodlords cost only 4. Macro OCs allow the Terran player to have a bigger army, but since Broodlords are air units while Thors are clumsy and bulky ground units, the more Thors you have the worst they will perform against high Broodlords count (and, once again, let us not forget the Broodlings swarm that comes with Broodlords, which at some point may simply prevent some Thors to reach Broodlords).
So, we have the tech switch issue, but we also have the “mass Broodlords with Infests” issue. Unlike Ultralisks, which are melee ground units and cost 6 supply anyway, Broodlords do not become weaker the more you have of them; actually, thanks to the Broodlings mechanic, it's quite the contrary. Terrans need a realistic answer to mass Broodlords/Infestors (of course with Corruptor support if needed) armies that inevitably come with late late game.
So Terran bro, wut u got?
Marines?
By lategame, though Marines are still useful, they cannot be played en masse the same way they are played by midgame since Infestors' Fungal Growths literally stop them dead. Marines would do fine against Broodlords on their own, but unfortunately Infestor support prevents them from ever reaching Broodlords, not to mention the Broodlings swarm that immediately spawns to surround them should they attempt to close the distance with Broodlords.
Thors?
Talked about them above.
Vikings?
Possible tech switch problem aside, in the end Vikings are simply not enough against Corruptors/Infestors. Even with the best splitting in the world (humanly speaking, I mean), Vikings inevitably tend to clump up when attacking, which means Fungal Growths will catch at least some of them, and then they will be food for Corruptors / Infested Terrans / more Fungals. Basically, Fungal Growth prevents Vikings to use their strength which is their long range; because speaking of values, it is not hard to see that the Corruptor does better in the toughness department (200 hps vs 125, 2 native armor vs 0).
Flying Banelings—I mean, Ravens?
So, the Raven—this “amazing unit of the future” which, strangely enough, is seldom seen outside of mirrors. For those who read those forums, you will always see that Raven guy who comes and teaches Terrans that “they bank 3k gas by lategame anyway,” so why not use that amazing HSM thing which will blow up your opponent's army (read: provided he's stupid enough not to micro his units[/strike)? Though you sometimes see Ravens in lategame TvZ play (don't know if Beastyqt still plays them sometimes, but this was one of the few players I saw using them; TLO was using them too), there are obvious and blatant issues which make it very hard to use them on a consistent basis.
Time
Remember the part above about Terrans having the slowest production? Typically, when playing Marine/Tanks/Medivacs in midgame, Terrans will enter lategame with one Reactor Starport—maybe with 2 Starports if you have spared resources and scout the Broodlords transition. It means that to build your Raven fleet, you will have to build several Starports with Lab attached, all while holding your line (because the Zerg player will try to break your line with his Broodlords), then research HSM and Corvid Reactor, then build Ravens, then wait 90 sec for them to have enough energy to launch a single HSM.
Now compare to Ghosts: they only require a Ghost Academy (40 sec) and Tech Labs on Barracks you already have, and depending on whether or not you have Moebius Reactor they come with 2 or 3 Snipes ready (i. e. they can be useful as soon as they spawn, not at T+90s).
What this means is that you can't really transition right away into Ravens off a standard Marines/Tank/Medivac midgame (even a mech midgame will seldom have more than 2 Starports, but they may have a Lab, so it could be a little bit easier for mech players); as costly and time-consuming as they are, in a standard game they're only viable in split map scenarii (or maybe past 4 bases for mech players who planned for a Raven transition). But then you run into the next issue:
HSM range
HSM range = 6
Fungal Growth range = 9
This simple fact makes it very difficult to use Ravens more than once, and this is why you see some people call them “flying Banelings”. Each time one of your Ravens moves forward to launch a HSM, he is at risk, because he enters the Zerg anti-air zone which is 9 range around the Infestors position. And 200 gas for possibly a single Missile which is not even guaranteed to hit a clump of units (remember: against HSM, Zerg players can still micro/spread their units) is simply too much.
So, aside from the infrastructure/time problem, the main, critical issue with Ravens is that they simply lose the caster war. Both Infestors and High Templars are able to outrange Ravens with deadly spells which kills them in some way. And this is a very serious problem, because on every map resources are limited: at some point, you must trade cost-efficiently or you will simply end up losing the split map scenario.
BattleCruisers?
Corruptors + Fungal Growth (and even Neural Parasite). Enough said. Yes, I did see this very nice Polt vs [don't remember the Zerg, maybe an IM player] ladder game @ Shattered Temple, but he could probably have won with mass SCVs, and anyway Ghosts would have netted him the kill earlier and more efficiently.
So… Ghosts.
First, we need to dismiss the idea that Ghosts are an auto-win button against lategame Zerg. This is simply false. As proven in the Fin/fOrGG vs Leenock game @ Daybreak in GSL Code S Ro32, you have to carefully manage your Ghost squad, else one bad Fungal Growth goes through and you're in deep trouble. Ghosts have 100 hit points, so they're frail units for their high cost—which is fine given their potential, but I'm merely reminding you that Ghosts are neither immortal nor invincible. They take a lot of micro to use, and the more Broodlords there is, the harder it becomes to manage your Ghost squad.
I'm also tired to hear that “Ghosts hard-counter tier3 Zerg”. This is not true. Immortals hard-counter Siege Tanks. The truth is Ghosts are a soft-counter: “Enough Ghosts with enough energy and careful micro are able to deal efficiently with Zerg tier3.” Which is very different from the usual “trololol Ghost auto-win button eznb” that you sometimes read on Live Report threads. As a Terran player, I say to Zerg players who are not convinced by this to play Terran against their own race (offracing against your own race really is a good experience anyway). You will quickly notice how fast your Ghosts fall each time you mismicro them. You will see that it takes a lot of resources and time to bank enough energy to be able to snipe a lot of Broodlords (or Ultralisks) and EMP Infestors. I mean, each time I enter lategame against Zerg, my purpose is to get this Ghost squad, but I can tell you it simply looks much easier when Mvp does it. Watching GSL, you may say “lol Ghost ez,” but then you can try it, even in a Unit test map, and you will see how hard it is to pull off, and how hard you will actually fail in a real game, desperately trying to micro your Ghost in a Broodlings sea while Broodlords relentlessly rain down death on your position.
Are Ghosts too efficient against Ultralisks? The thing is, a lot of Zerg players (including progamers) simply have a terrible Ultralisks use, making either too much of them (i. e. not enough support) or sending them to death in heavily fortified positions and then complaining about them being “horrible” or something. Like Broodlords, Ultralisks need support (Banelings and/or Infestors, and most importantly Zerglings) to do their job—but anyway, in the end, you likely won't win a split map scenario (and I'm talking about real split map, not 4/5 bases vs 3/4) against Terran with only Ultralisks, simply because, well, all melee units can be defended quite easily using chokes and mass ranged units behind defences; whether death comes from Snipes or something else is irrelevant at this point, I think you simply have to transition to Broodlords in a split map scenario, just as Protosses simply cannot afford to keep running on pure Blink Stalkers + Colossi against a mass Broodlords/Infestors/Spines split map scenario. I know, Ultralisks are tier3 while Blink Stalkers are not; still, regardless of tiers, there simply is some point beyond which some compositions are no more playable in some scenarii. For Ultralisks, the reason is quite self-explanatory: ranged units (especially air ones) get exponentially better while ground melee units do not (partly due to collision size issues).
So basically, when looking at Ghosts vs Ultralisks skirmishes, you have to wonder if using Ultralisks was the right thing to do given the state of the game, i. e. if the Terran had enough time to bank full energy on 20+ Ghosts, it was probably not a good choice anyway to head this way. Ultralisks' effectiveness simply starts decreasing beyond some point. While they're viable at the beginning of the late game, I'm not convinced about their uses in split map scenarii in which both players are allowed to bank mass resources.
Killing Infestors with 2 Snipes, down to 3, is basically irrelevant since Infestors will safely stand behind Broodlords if you can no longer kill them as fast and efficiently as now. I mean, even with the current Snipe, facing 15+ Broodlords with Infestor (and Overseers!) support is still a challenge even for the best players in the world—so how are Terrans supposed to deal with this if this silly change goes through? As stated above, even tech switch problems aside, Vikings, Thors and Ravens all have obvious problems. Sniping is a bit like a race against the clock anyway, since the longer your Ghosts take to kill Broodlords, the more Broodlords, Broodlings and your own Siege Tanks hurt them, so going up to 10 hits from 6 is simply stupid. Once again, even with the current Snipe, a lot of Terrans have difficulties in late game, because as stated above managing your Ghost squad is not easy at all—even pros fail it sometimes, so how are people with only two arms supposed to deal with this? And for people who will answer “don't let this happen,” do you realize how stupid it would be if one race had close to no chance by late game against some armies? All races should have fair chances to win by lategame, even against “the ultimate army”. This Snipe change simply means that Zergs will now be able to turtle into 20+ Broodlords with Corruptors/Infestors support, and then laugh at you because you won't have any efficient tool to deal with this.
|
"This range upgrade should help even the odds by giving protoss players the option to reactively build phoenixes in smaller numbers, and with some micro, allow them to more efficiently defend against mutalisk swarms."
Blizzards words here, its entirely misleading. There is no way to play reactive against mutas when in order to counter them you need a fleet beacon.
Blizzards true intention is for the upgrade to only be used late game when there is 40-50 mutas. So the upgrade is useful in ONE situation only.
That is piss poor game design to make an ability that is only for one situation. Its a bandaid till HoTS.
This is a strategy game and its really awful to see that zerg can mass one unit and win games at high lvl play.
Phoenix already cost more AND can only bld one at a time. It should be at least a 2-1 ratio that they should contest muta WITHOUT any upgrade (let alone an upgrade that is at end game tech).
You say, "they can't give them splash", why does the muta come with it (glaive worm equivalent) and you can bld 10 at a time?
I guess its too much to ask for the more expensive "counter" unit not to lose to the cheaper and faster building one.....
Either the muta is broken and needs a fix (which sucks as I think its fine in ZvT becasue of the marine) or the larva mechanic needs to be addressed because zerg should not have better units than their counterparts AND the best production capabilities .....
|
On February 12 2012 23:53 PureBalls wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 17:40 mlspmatt wrote:On February 12 2012 16:56 Sandermatt wrote:On February 12 2012 15:36 mlspmatt wrote:
I occasionally play Toss and Zerg, and I find their macro much more forgiving. If you miss a macro round as Terran, it's gone, you missed it. With Zerg you just spend more larva, with Toss you warp stuff in then chrono and do it again. I wouldn't say terran macro is harder, just less forgiving.
And I'm gonna miss the ghost. I don't think terrans are going to make them much in TvZ if this nurf happens. They're so expensive, and need the two upgrades, and with their output cut in half, investing those resources in Vikings/air upgrades or more Rax might be a better investment.
It's terrible for the game and as a fan. I wanna see more ghosts, not less ghosts.
About your comment on forgiving macro: If you miss it with toss and chrono, you miss whatever else you would have chronoed if you didn't miss the cycle. If you miss an inject as zerg it's gone as well. Terrans can que up the second cycle before the first cycle finishes (you shouldn't que up too much, but still you do not have to wait until the last unit is produced). Neither injects nor warpgate cycles can be qued up. I agree that terrans need a lot of micro in many situations, but their macro surely isn't less forgiving than the one of zergs and protosses. About the changes: I like the mule change. The ghost change seems a little bit extreme. In TvZ they might remain somewhat useful for nukes and emps for infestors, but in uch smaller numbers. In TvT they most likely vanish completly (altough they were already rare). In TvP the change does little, You can no longer snipe zealots but otherwise. I think the range upgrade will actually help protoss, even on the fleet beacon, as protosses build motherships in PvZ anyway. Your argument is silly. If you que units, your essentially miss managing your macro, which would be similar to having to use chrono inefeciently or missing injects. It's just bad macro. You're assuming there's no cost to Terran queing units when there clearly is. Assuming i don't macro perfectly, which I do not, my biggest concern when I mess up is getting units on the field so I don't die. Having two rounds of units qued in my baracks isn't going to do me any good when my opponent shows up to kill me. I'm gonna die. If I mess up with Zerg, I have much more flexibility in how I spend my larva, or I can have a macro hatch, in any case I find I can get units on the field, quicker, again so i do not die. Protoss is in between the two. Not as flexable as Zerg but still gives me a way to get units on the field faster with chronoboost of my gates. If my opponent is coming to kill me i don't give a shit if i'm not using my chrono as effecientley as possible, I need units, and I need them NOW. Chrono allows me to do that. Terran has no way to get units on the field faster if I'm going to die. And again, I can have my units que'd 4 deep but that aint gonna do me any good when my oponent is on my doorstep. I'll take the chronoboost and queen injections to Terrans queing any day. But that's just my opinion. Then you are doing it wrong. What you should be doing as terran, is queing BEFORE the battle, so that you have APM to spare on your micro. Thats a luxury neither toss nor zerg have. As toss, if your gates are ready, you have to make units in midst of a battle, and therefore you lose APM for microing units. If you micro and dont make units, you lose those 5-15 sec on every warp gate, and you cant get it back. Same with zerg.
Your right. Toss and Zerg can't que. Toss can just chronoboost their gates and warp them anywhere they want, I like that feature, and Zerg can just make a crap ton of whatever they want and remax instantley, thats a nice feature too.
And your telling me that compared to those two abilities queing units is better? OK.
|
On February 13 2012 00:44 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 23:53 PureBalls wrote:On February 12 2012 17:40 mlspmatt wrote:On February 12 2012 16:56 Sandermatt wrote:On February 12 2012 15:36 mlspmatt wrote:
I occasionally play Toss and Zerg, and I find their macro much more forgiving. If you miss a macro round as Terran, it's gone, you missed it. With Zerg you just spend more larva, with Toss you warp stuff in then chrono and do it again. I wouldn't say terran macro is harder, just less forgiving.
And I'm gonna miss the ghost. I don't think terrans are going to make them much in TvZ if this nurf happens. They're so expensive, and need the two upgrades, and with their output cut in half, investing those resources in Vikings/air upgrades or more Rax might be a better investment.
It's terrible for the game and as a fan. I wanna see more ghosts, not less ghosts.
About your comment on forgiving macro: If you miss it with toss and chrono, you miss whatever else you would have chronoed if you didn't miss the cycle. If you miss an inject as zerg it's gone as well. Terrans can que up the second cycle before the first cycle finishes (you shouldn't que up too much, but still you do not have to wait until the last unit is produced). Neither injects nor warpgate cycles can be qued up. I agree that terrans need a lot of micro in many situations, but their macro surely isn't less forgiving than the one of zergs and protosses. About the changes: I like the mule change. The ghost change seems a little bit extreme. In TvZ they might remain somewhat useful for nukes and emps for infestors, but in uch smaller numbers. In TvT they most likely vanish completly (altough they were already rare). In TvP the change does little, You can no longer snipe zealots but otherwise. I think the range upgrade will actually help protoss, even on the fleet beacon, as protosses build motherships in PvZ anyway. Your argument is silly. If you que units, your essentially miss managing your macro, which would be similar to having to use chrono inefeciently or missing injects. It's just bad macro. You're assuming there's no cost to Terran queing units when there clearly is. Assuming i don't macro perfectly, which I do not, my biggest concern when I mess up is getting units on the field so I don't die. Having two rounds of units qued in my baracks isn't going to do me any good when my opponent shows up to kill me. I'm gonna die. If I mess up with Zerg, I have much more flexibility in how I spend my larva, or I can have a macro hatch, in any case I find I can get units on the field, quicker, again so i do not die. Protoss is in between the two. Not as flexable as Zerg but still gives me a way to get units on the field faster with chronoboost of my gates. If my opponent is coming to kill me i don't give a shit if i'm not using my chrono as effecientley as possible, I need units, and I need them NOW. Chrono allows me to do that. Terran has no way to get units on the field faster if I'm going to die. And again, I can have my units que'd 4 deep but that aint gonna do me any good when my oponent is on my doorstep. I'll take the chronoboost and queen injections to Terrans queing any day. But that's just my opinion. Then you are doing it wrong. What you should be doing as terran, is queing BEFORE the battle, so that you have APM to spare on your micro. Thats a luxury neither toss nor zerg have. As toss, if your gates are ready, you have to make units in midst of a battle, and therefore you lose APM for microing units. If you micro and dont make units, you lose those 5-15 sec on every warp gate, and you cant get it back. Same with zerg. Your right. Toss and Zerg can't que. Toss can just chronoboost their gates and warp them anywhere they want, I like that feature, and Zerg can just make a crap ton of whatever they want and remax instantley, thats a nice feature too. And your telling me that compared to those two abilities queing units is better? OK.
That's kinda why I have problems playing terran, queuing units up just feels wrong but if I'm gonna be keeping up production in battle there's just too many types of buildings I got to cycle through, with zerg you got it all on hatcheries and protoss you mostly use warp gates and it's all instant for zerg and protoss. I almost wish Terran had the ability to call down units like mules but in a more limited way so it acted kinda like warp gates.
|
[B]
Your right. Toss and Zerg can't que. Toss can just chronoboost their gates and warp them anywhere they want, I like that feature, and Zerg can just make a crap ton of whatever they want and remax instantley, thats a nice feature too.
And your telling me that compared to those two abilities queing units is better? OK.
You are missing the point that with mules you can sustain more production buildings on same amount of bases regardless, while protoss can warp in in he middle off the battle, and zerg can make a huge swell off units at once, you have the highest average production from all 3 races.
|
On February 13 2012 00:52 TechSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +[B]
Your right. Toss and Zerg can't que. Toss can just chronoboost their gates and warp them anywhere they want, I like that feature, and Zerg can just make a crap ton of whatever they want and remax instantley, thats a nice feature too.
And your telling me that compared to those two abilities queing units is better? OK. You are missing the point that with mules you can sustain more production buildings on same amount of bases regardless, while protoss can warp in in he middle off the battle, and zerg can make a huge swell off units at once, you have the highest average production from all 3 races.
you can't be serious...
|
On February 12 2012 22:49 algue wrote:
I don't like the phoenix's range upgrade :/
Giving AoE damage upgrade would have been better in my opinion.
=> Muta would still be able to kill easily the phoenix but with major loses instead of a dumb chase all other the map with phoenixes kiting mutas !
Range upgrade won't do anything if phoenix get trapped by a fungal !
On the contrary, as attractive as an AOE attack upgrade sounds, it would have very little practical use except against huge balls of muta. I mean think about phoenixes, they have a graviton beam ability that lifts a SINGLE unit up into the air. Splash damage totally clashes with that mechanic. Splash would solve the mass muta problem as well, but increasing range is more subtle and cohesive.
The Blizzard fix allows for the toss to use smaller amounts of phoenix to slowly cut down the muta numbers, and with longer range the toss will be able to maintain those phoenixes, rather than suicide a few, make more, suicide again.
The point about being trapped by fungal is totally fine, and Blizzard even covers it by saying that this fix does not completely shut down muta, since you can use infestors to hold phoenixes. Not only does this change stop the massing of pure muta, it also promotes unit diversity, by allowing zergs to protect their muta with infestors and somewhat with corruptors.
The extra 2 range also means that phoenixes are more useful in killing drones, queens and, overlords, which usually hide near spore crawlers for their only defense. With 6 range vs the 7 of a spore, anything hiding will have to be right beside or right on top of a spore to avoid being picked up and shot down.
Overall this change was brilliant in my opinion, because it adds more depth to the game rather than adding a hard counter.
|
4713 Posts
You guys fail to consider that, Terrans queuing too many units is flat out terrible macro, those resources locked into building units could be better spent immediately on research, more infrastructure, etc, rather than more army later. Effectively a terran still needs to cycle trough his buildings to make units as they are coming out, otherwise it is sloppy.
Also, may people fail to consider terran requires the most micro in terms of intensity. While yes, zerg does spend micro to set up flanks, split banes and swoop in with mutas, and Toss also spends micro on FF, blink, moving colossus etc, these aren't nearly as intense and consuming as having to 100% stutter step marines, split marines, focus fire banes etc.
The raw intensity of terran micro makes it hard for them to do anything other things in the background, coupled with the lowest efficiency armies if not micro-ed and you have one hell of a ride.
TheDwf, made one of the best and most all encompassing posts describing the late game terran situation relative to units, and he is damn right on every point.
Ghost is not auto-win by default, it is very hard to accumulate enough ghosts with enough energy to execute that, and it is even harder to execute the snipe micro while also maintaining a good position and trading cost efficiently. I bet most people just look at MVP and how easy he does it and they automatically assume anyone can do it.
I dare any zerg player to try this kind of tactic in a real game, to see what a terran has to go trough to make it work, and then come back and comment on it and see if they still think the same of it.
Of course no one wants to believe this, they want to believe that Ghost is OP and terran is OP and evil and should be nerfed, the amount of anti-terran bias hasn't gone down since the beginning of the game, even though patch after patch they kept getting nerfed, now they are just going to push them over the edge.
And no the answer is not to stop the zerg from getting into a position where he can make BL or Ultra and than tech switch into one or the other, every race should have an answer to fight the other race's late game comp head to head. You should be able to prevent it, but if you didn't you should still be able to fight it, not only is it bad for the game if one option doesn't exist, in the sense that it is limited and predictable, but it is also broken if one side doesn't have an answer to the other at every stage in the game.
|
On February 12 2012 21:22 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 21:09 PureBalls wrote:On February 12 2012 09:03 KiLLJoy216 wrote:On February 12 2012 08:53 Tulkas25 wrote:On February 12 2012 08:41 KiLLJoy216 wrote:
Let me inform you people on the reason why they nerfed the ghost's snipe ability:
In the late game, a lot of the ghosts have 150 energy saved up, if not more. When 2 ghosts can snipe an ultra or broodlord without the Terran losing any units, it's imbalanced. That is effectively removing 4-6 supply of the zerg's army, which is worth roughly 300 minerals and 200 gas, for free. Tier 3 units are meant to be the backbone of all the races' army. So when you can remove those units basically for free, there is a problem. After you remove those units all Zerg is left with are Tier 1 units, zerglings, and maybe some infestors and banelings.
Some may say thats a stretch but let me tell you, it isn't. If you have seen any Terran professionals play, you would know most of them have about 16 ghosts ( If not more ) in the late game versus Zerg. There goes 8 Ultralisks, or 16 Broodlords essentially for free.
Don't waste your time posting a response if you are going to come up with the argument of micro. It is not that micro intesive to pull off. Even if the Terran loses 4 ghosts, he/she is still ahead by miles. We waste our time posting responses about innefective tier 3 units to counter your Tier 3 and tier 2.5 units a.k.a infestors..Have you ever wonder why ppl even if they have an economy advantage stay on marine/tank/medivac with the occasional thor???Because they have nothing to transition to..Get your facts straight.We don't like to base our game on a unit that easily dies to mass tier 1 units anyway.We want viable late game units that capitalize on our mid to late game advantage(if that exists at any given game) I implore you to think before speaking. Terran has units to transition to, here are some examples: Raven, Banshee, Battlecruiser. Terran 's refusing to try and incorporate them into their army is a whole different story. This is why I admire White Ra. He makes use of the underused Carrier and makes it a very viable and powerful unit. Just because Terran's still have yet to discover how to use these units properly is not a valid reason to say " we have nothing to transition into". Thats right! Protoss got so desperate fighting BL/INf, that they made even the most gimmicky unit in the game (Mothership) work! There simply is no excuse for not using ravens and BCs (yamato gun). Produce a good mix of ravens, BCs and Vikings, and you will see, that there is hardly anything a zerg can do to stop that composition. Defended by PDDs BCs rape even equal cost hydras and corruptors. That is not true at all. I just tried this this in the unit tester just to make sure. Corruptors evaporate Battlecruicers even with PDD. Please remember that Corruptors only cost 100 gas compared to Ravens 200 and Battlecruicers 300.
You make only a handful of BCs and research yamato, so you can own BLs, the rest of your cash you invest in vikings and a handful of ravens.
If zerg cant own you with air only, why should be able to own the zerg with air only? You spend your overmins on rines.
|
Neural Parasite and Corruptors will decimate any BC fleet.
The base 2 armor Corruptors get along with how they already are a part of BL/Infestor (since you need them to morph to BLs) generally means the BCs will just get swamped.
All the Infestors on the ground can contribute with all three of their abilities, FG to hold them, Infested Terrans for additional DPS and Neural Parasite to finish it off.
|
On February 13 2012 00:52 TechSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +[B]
Your right. Toss and Zerg can't que. Toss can just chronoboost their gates and warp them anywhere they want, I like that feature, and Zerg can just make a crap ton of whatever they want and remax instantley, thats a nice feature too.
And your telling me that compared to those two abilities queing units is better? OK. You are missing the point that with mules you can sustain more production buildings on same amount of bases regardless, while protoss can warp in in he middle off the battle, and zerg can make a huge swell off units at once, you have the highest average production from all 3 races.
No I understand your point, but your trying to convince me that queing units is better than both warpgate + chrono and Zerg insta-MAX and I'm not buying it. IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
You can tell me all you want that the Chevy Cavalier REALLY is better than the BMW, It's more fuel effecient, more of a family vehicle, it's cheaper. But I'm looking at these two with my own two eyes and I'm gonna trust my lying eyes over whatever you're selling.
|
On February 13 2012 00:34 TheDwf wrote:High Master Terran on Europe here, sometimes playing GMs. Since I'm usually only a spectator for the PvZ match-up, I will not talk about the Phoenix change. MULEs now harvest the same amount of minerals on both high yield minerals and normal minerals.This change is somewhat ok, though gold and MULE-haters should remember that Terran players gain little “more” by taking their fourth and fifth bases, unlike Zergs and Protosses who have then access to their precious 8/10 gases to build gas-heavy powerful units en masse. Since Terran do not benefit as much as the other races from 8/10 gases compared to 6 gases, is it that imbalanced that they're rewarded with a temporary income boost in the ressource that matters the most for them, i.e. minerals? People should remember that faster mining also means the base will be mined out earlier than normal, which means Terrans will have to (over)extend again to maintain the same income, something which is not easy to do on some maps. Now, talking about maps—I think this is the main issue with gold bases. Take Antiga for instance; gold bases were removed in recent tournament versions: did it change anything to the fact that, in ZvT, once the Terran player controls the center, the Zerg player is in deep trouble anyway? Snipe damage changed from 45 to 25 +25 PsionicThis is a terrible and very poorly thought change. As long as neither flying Banelings (read: Ravens) nor BattleCruisers are really viable, Terrans will still need some kind of “universal unit” against Zerg tier3. Reasons are known—thanks to the way their race works, Zergs are able to remax on Ultralisks after they've traded their Broodlords, and vice versa. Since Vikings don't do well against Ultralisks, nor Marauders are particularly hot against Broodlords, and with Terran having the slowest production in the game, the Zerg possibility to tech switch in a little more than a minut (55 sec for Ultralisks, 74 for Broodlords) without the Terran being able to know which unit the Zerg chose until he sees eggs spawning (this is of the utmost importance, because it means Terran is forced to wait at least 40 sec before starting his “counter units”) means that Terrans have to be able to rely on units that are good against one option, and at least “ok” against the other option—not to mention that at this point, Zergs should have banked enough larvae to be able to quickly build a Zergling swarm. Thors are somewhat ok against both Broodlords and Ultralisks, but their anti-air low rate of fire simply prevents them from killing Broodlords efficiently, especially with Queens being able to negate many shots in a single Transfuse. Besides, Thors are slow to replenish, and they cost 6 supply whereas Broodlords cost only 4. Macro OCs allow the Terran player to have a bigger army, but since Broodlords are air units while Thors are clumsy and bulky ground units, the more Thors you have the worst they will perform against high Broodlords count (and, once again, let us not forget the Broodlings swarm that comes with Broodlords, which at some point may simply prevent some Thors to reach Broodlords). So, we have the tech switch issue, but we also have the “mass Broodlords with Infests” issue. Unlike Ultralisks, which are melee ground units and cost 6 supply anyway, Broodlords do not become weaker the more you have of them; actually, thanks to the Broodlings mechanic, it's quite the contrary. Terrans need a realistic answer to mass Broodlords/Infestors (of course with Corruptor support if needed) armies that inevitably come with late late game. So Terran bro, wut u got? Marines?By lategame, though Marines are still useful, they cannot be played en masse the same way they are played by midgame since Infestors' Fungal Growths literally stop them dead. Marines would do fine against Broodlords on their own, but unfortunately Infestor support prevents them from ever reaching Broodlords, not to mention the Broodlings swarm that immediately spawns to surround them should they attempt to close the distance with Broodlords. Thors?Talked about them above. Vikings?Possible tech switch problem aside, in the end Vikings are simply not enough against Corruptors/Infestors. Even with the best splitting in the world (humanly speaking, I mean), Vikings inevitably tend to clump up when attacking, which means Fungal Growths will catch at least some of them, and then they will be food for Corruptors / Infested Terrans / more Fungals. Basically, Fungal Growth prevents Vikings to use their strength which is their long range; because speaking of values, it is not hard to see that the Corruptor does better in the toughness department (200 hps vs 125, 2 native armor vs 0). Flying Banelings—I mean, Ravens?So, the Raven—this “amazing unit of the future” which, strangely enough, is seldom seen outside of mirrors. For those who read those forums, you will always see that Raven guy who comes and teaches Terrans that “they bank 3k gas by lategame anyway,” so why not use that amazing HSM thing which will blow up your opponent's army (read: provided he's stupid enough not to micro his units[/strike)? Though you sometimes see Ravens in lategame TvZ play (don't know if Beastyqt still plays them sometimes, but this was one of the few players I saw using them; TLO was using them too), there are obvious and blatant issues which make it very hard to use them on a consistent basis. TimeRemember the part above about Terrans having the slowest production? Typically, when playing Marine/Tanks/Medivacs in midgame, Terrans will enter lategame with one Reactor Starport—maybe with 2 Starports if you have spared resources and scout the Broodlords transition. It means that to build your Raven fleet, you will have to build several Starports with Lab attached, all while holding your line (because the Zerg player will try to break your line with his Broodlords), then research HSM and Corvid Reactor, then build Ravens, then wait 90 sec for them to have enough energy to launch a single HSM. Now compare to Ghosts: they only require a Ghost Academy (40 sec) and Tech Labs on Barracks you already have, and depending on whether or not you have Moebius Reactor they come with 2 or 3 Snipes ready ( i. e. they can be useful as soon as they spawn, not at T+90s). What this means is that you can't really transition right away into Ravens off a standard Marines/Tank/Medivac midgame (even a mech midgame will seldom have more than 2 Starports, but they may have a Lab, so it could be a little bit easier for mech players); as costly and time-consuming as they are, in a standard game they're only viable in split map scenarii (or maybe past 4 bases for mech players who planned for a Raven transition). But then you run into the next issue: HSM rangeHSM range = 6
Fungal Growth range = 9 This simple fact makes it very difficult to use Ravens more than once, and this is why you see some people call them “flying Banelings”. Each time one of your Ravens moves forward to launch a HSM, he is at risk, because he enters the Zerg anti-air zone which is 9 range around the Infestors position. And 200 gas for possibly a single Missile which is not even guaranteed to hit a clump of units (remember: against HSM, Zerg players can still micro/spread their units) is simply too much. So, aside from the infrastructure/time problem, the main, critical issue with Ravens is that they simply lose the caster war. Both Infestors and High Templars are able to outrange Ravens with deadly spells which kills them in some way. And this is a very serious problem, because on every map resources are limited: at some point, you must trade cost-efficiently or you will simply end up losing the split map scenario. BattleCruisers?Corruptors + Fungal Growth (and even Neural Parasite). Enough said. Yes, I did see this very nice Polt vs [don't remember the Zerg, maybe an IM player] ladder game @ Shattered Temple, but he could probably have won with mass SCVs, and anyway Ghosts would have netted him the kill earlier and more efficiently. So… Ghosts.First, we need to dismiss the idea that Ghosts are an auto-win button against lategame Zerg. This is simply false. As proven in the Fin/fOrGG vs Leenock game @ Daybreak in GSL Code S Ro32, you have to carefully manage your Ghost squad, else one bad Fungal Growth goes through and you're in deep trouble. Ghosts have 100 hit points, so they're frail units for their high cost—which is fine given their potential, but I'm merely reminding you that Ghosts are neither immortal nor invincible. They take a lot of micro to use, and the more Broodlords there is, the harder it becomes to manage your Ghost squad. I'm also tired to hear that “Ghosts hard-counter tier3 Zerg”. This is not true. Immortals hard-counter Siege Tanks. The truth is Ghosts are a soft-counter: “Enough Ghosts with enough energy and careful micro are able to deal efficiently with Zerg tier3.” Which is very different from the usual “trololol Ghost auto-win button eznb” that you sometimes read on Live Report threads. As a Terran player, I say to Zerg players who are not convinced by this to play Terran against their own race (offracing against your own race really is a good experience anyway). You will quickly notice how fast your Ghosts fall each time you mismicro them. You will see that it takes a lot of resources and time to bank enough energy to be able to snipe a lot of Broodlords (or Ultralisks) and EMP Infestors. I mean, each time I enter lategame against Zerg, my purpose is to get this Ghost squad, but I can tell you it simply looks much easier when Mvp does it. Watching GSL, you may say “lol Ghost ez,” but then you can try it, even in a Unit test map, and you will see how hard it is to pull off, and how hard you will actually fail in a real game, desperately trying to micro your Ghost in a Broodlings sea while Broodlords relentlessly rain down death on your position. Are Ghosts too efficient against Ultralisks? The thing is, a lot of Zerg players (including progamers) simply have a terrible Ultralisks use, making either too much of them ( i. e. not enough support) or sending them to death in heavily fortified positions and then complaining about them being “horrible” or something. Like Broodlords, Ultralisks need support (Banelings and/or Infestors, and most importantly Zerglings) to do their job—but anyway, in the end, you likely won't win a split map scenario (and I'm talking about real split map, not 4/5 bases vs 3/4) against Terran with only Ultralisks, simply because, well, all melee units can be defended quite easily using chokes and mass ranged units behind defences; whether death comes from Snipes or something else is irrelevant at this point, I think you simply have to transition to Broodlords in a split map scenario, just as Protosses simply cannot afford to keep running on pure Blink Stalkers + Colossi against a mass Broodlords/Infestors/Spines split map scenario. I know, Ultralisks are tier3 while Blink Stalkers are not; still, regardless of tiers, there simply is some point beyond which some compositions are no more playable in some scenarii. For Ultralisks, the reason is quite self-explanatory: ranged units (especially air ones) get exponentially better while ground melee units do not (partly due to collision size issues). So basically, when looking at Ghosts vs Ultralisks skirmishes, you have to wonder if using Ultralisks was the right thing to do given the state of the game, i. e. if the Terran had enough time to bank full energy on 20+ Ghosts, it was probably not a good choice anyway to head this way. Ultralisks' effectiveness simply starts decreasing beyond some point. While they're viable at the beginning of the late game, I'm not convinced about their uses in split map scenarii in which both players are allowed to bank mass resources. Killing Infestors with 2 Snipes, down to 3, is basically irrelevant since Infestors will safely stand behind Broodlords if you can no longer kill them as fast and efficiently as now. I mean, even with the current Snipe, facing 15+ Broodlords with Infestor (and Overseers!) support is still a challenge even for the best players in the world—so how are Terrans supposed to deal with this if this silly change goes through? As stated above, even tech switch problems aside, Vikings, Thors and Ravens all have obvious problems. Sniping is a bit like a race against the clock anyway, since the longer your Ghosts take to kill Broodlords, the more Broodlords, Broodlings and your own Siege Tanks hurt them, so going up to 10 hits from 6 is simply stupid. Once again, even with the current Snipe, a lot of Terrans have difficulties in late game, because as stated above managing your Ghost squad is not easy at all—even pros fail it sometimes, so how are people with only two arms supposed to deal with this? And for people who will answer “don't let this happen,” do you realize how stupid it would be if one race had close to no chance by late game against some armies? All races should have fair chances to win by lategame, even against “the ultimate army”. This Snipe change simply means that Zergs will now be able to turtle into 20+ Broodlords with Corruptors/Infestors support, and then laugh at you because you won't have any efficient tool to deal with this.
I couldn't agree more. Very well written 
|
On February 12 2012 21:25 xongnox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 21:19 PureBalls wrote:On February 12 2012 09:22 Naphal wrote:
so "try carriers" or "try doublenydus" please. There are zerg and toss players, who are experimenting with both. Whitera and HongUn come to mind (carriers). There are no terrans experimenting with BCs and ravens. lol We experimented them since beta, dude. For a raven exemple you can see Brat_Ok vs Nestea on shakuras @ blizzcon. Beastyqt or even Kas incorporate them more and more in their late game vs Z/T. For BC.... TLO, Beastyqt, all T in TvT, used to incorporate them. They are just overall bad vs Z, and we simply need too much costly infrastructure (fusion core, 4 starport, some more armory and upgrades) to do this non-powerful switch. Btw zerglings/bling counter BC.
Did you watch Whitera and HongUn play carriers?
Why dont zegling/bling counter carriers?
And no, I havent seen BCs in TvZ even once after beta. I'm aware of the TvT situation, but thats a MU, where balance is a non issue.
Compared to the late game standard play PvZ (almost every game with BL/Inf you will see toss going for Mamaship), ravens are non existent.
Try, fail, try some more!
|
On February 13 2012 01:06 mlspmatt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 00:52 TechSc2 wrote:[B]
Your right. Toss and Zerg can't que. Toss can just chronoboost their gates and warp them anywhere they want, I like that feature, and Zerg can just make a crap ton of whatever they want and remax instantley, thats a nice feature too.
And your telling me that compared to those two abilities queing units is better? OK. You are missing the point that with mules you can sustain more production buildings on same amount of bases regardless, while protoss can warp in in he middle off the battle, and zerg can make a huge swell off units at once, you have the highest average production from all 3 races. No I understand your point, but your trying to convince me that queing units is better than both warpgate + chrono and Zerg insta-MAX and I'm not buying it. IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE. You can tell me all you want that the Chevy Cavalier REALLY is better than the BMW, It's more fuel effecient, more of a family vehicle, it's cheaper. But I'm looking at these two with my own two eyes and I'm gonna trust my lying eyes over whatever you're selling.
I'm not saying that queing units is good, just merely pointing out that the macro off the 3 races work differently, where terrans are the most linear ones, protoss in small surges and zerg is huge surges. My point merely was that the army value from a terran is always higher then a protoss one or zerg one, simply because the macro mechanic the mule allows you to produce more off the same amount of bases.
Protoss CAN use chronoboost on warp gate, and zerg CAN use injects on hatches, but protoss also needs the chronoboost for upgrades and zergs also need queen energy to spread creep. So in a sense the mule is the most efficient in the way that you can ALWAYS spend it on more production facilities.
Because of this difference, the cost efficiency for zerg is the least per unit, then it's protoss then it's terran. zerg NEEDS to make alot of reinforcement at once to keep up with the already bigger army then terran, and protoss NEEDS the warp ins in order to keep up against an already larger terrans army.
|
I'm confused by the snipe change. So is it also a 25 damage nerf to Zealots?
If so, how are they supposed to be countered?
|
On February 12 2012 21:52 -Archangel- wrote:
I don't like Phoenix upgrade. I don't think it is needed for pro play, and in cases where there are no air units to fight with phoenixes it will be really hard to stop them without infestors. 6 range means that already weak spores will be useless now. Phoenixes will be able to pick of drones without any danger.
No, graviton is not affected by the upgrade. So you wont be able to pick up anything from further distance. Spores will still be effective.
|
On February 13 2012 01:08 PureBalls wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 21:25 xongnox wrote:On February 12 2012 21:19 PureBalls wrote:On February 12 2012 09:22 Naphal wrote:
so "try carriers" or "try doublenydus" please. There are zerg and toss players, who are experimenting with both. Whitera and HongUn come to mind (carriers). There are no terrans experimenting with BCs and ravens. lol We experimented them since beta, dude. For a raven exemple you can see Brat_Ok vs Nestea on shakuras @ blizzcon. Beastyqt or even Kas incorporate them more and more in their late game vs Z/T. For BC.... TLO, Beastyqt, all T in TvT, used to incorporate them. They are just overall bad vs Z, and we simply need too much costly infrastructure (fusion core, 4 starport, some more armory and upgrades) to do this non-powerful switch. Btw zerglings/bling counter BC. Did you watch Whitera and HongUn play carriers? Why dont zegling/bling counter carriers? And no, I havent seen BCs in TvZ even once after beta. I'm aware of the TvT situation, but thats a MU, where balance is a non issue. Compared to the late game standard play PvZ (almost every game with BL/Inf you will see toss going for Mamaship), ravens are non existent. Try, fail, try some more!
This is the same argument people used to make about Mech in TvP. "No it really is good, you terrans just don't want to try it" says the Zerg player who's never played terran.
Ravens suck as do Battlecruisers. The reason Terrans don't use them is not because they havn't tried, but because when they did they lost so badly, they realized how stupid that idea was and abandoned it for common sense.
|
On February 13 2012 00:34 TheDwf wrote:+ Show Spoiler +High Master Terran on Europe here, sometimes playing GMs. Since I'm usually only a spectator for the PvZ match-up, I will not talk about the Phoenix change. MULEs now harvest the same amount of minerals on both high yield minerals and normal minerals.This change is somewhat ok, though gold and MULE-haters should remember that Terran players gain little “more” by taking their fourth and fifth bases, unlike Zergs and Protosses who have then access to their precious 8/10 gases to build gas-heavy powerful units en masse. Since Terran do not benefit as much as the other races from 8/10 gases compared to 6 gases, is it that imbalanced that they're rewarded with a temporary income boost in the ressource that matters the most for them, i.e. minerals? People should remember that faster mining also means the base will be mined out earlier than normal, which means Terrans will have to (over)extend again to maintain the same income, something which is not easy to do on some maps. Now, talking about maps—I think this is the main issue with gold bases. Take Antiga for instance; gold bases were removed in recent tournament versions: did it change anything to the fact that, in ZvT, once the Terran player controls the center, the Zerg player is in deep trouble anyway? Snipe damage changed from 45 to 25 +25 PsionicThis is a terrible and very poorly thought change. As long as neither flying Banelings (read: Ravens) nor BattleCruisers are really viable, Terrans will still need some kind of “universal unit” against Zerg tier3. Reasons are known—thanks to the way their race works, Zergs are able to remax on Ultralisks after they've traded their Broodlords, and vice versa. Since Vikings don't do well against Ultralisks, nor Marauders are particularly hot against Broodlords, and with Terran having the slowest production in the game, the Zerg possibility to tech switch in a little more than a minut (55 sec for Ultralisks, 74 for Broodlords) without the Terran being able to know which unit the Zerg chose until he sees eggs spawning (this is of the utmost importance, because it means Terran is forced to wait at least 40 sec before starting his “counter units”) means that Terrans have to be able to rely on units that are good against one option, and at least “ok” against the other option—not to mention that at this point, Zergs should have banked enough larvae to be able to quickly build a Zergling swarm. Thors are somewhat ok against both Broodlords and Ultralisks, but their anti-air low rate of fire simply prevents them from killing Broodlords efficiently, especially with Queens being able to negate many shots in a single Transfuse. Besides, Thors are slow to replenish, and they cost 6 supply whereas Broodlords cost only 4. Macro OCs allow the Terran player to have a bigger army, but since Broodlords are air units while Thors are clumsy and bulky ground units, the more Thors you have the worst they will perform against high Broodlords count (and, once again, let us not forget the Broodlings swarm that comes with Broodlords, which at some point may simply prevent some Thors to reach Broodlords). So, we have the tech switch issue, but we also have the “mass Broodlords with Infests” issue. Unlike Ultralisks, which are melee ground units and cost 6 supply anyway, Broodlords do not become weaker the more you have of them; actually, thanks to the Broodlings mechanic, it's quite the contrary. Terrans need a realistic answer to mass Broodlords/Infestors (of course with Corruptor support if needed) armies that inevitably come with late late game. So Terran bro, wut u got? Marines?By lategame, though Marines are still useful, they cannot be played en masse the same way they are played by midgame since Infestors' Fungal Growths literally stop them dead. Marines would do fine against Broodlords on their own, but unfortunately Infestor support prevents them from ever reaching Broodlords, not to mention the Broodlings swarm that immediately spawns to surround them should they attempt to close the distance with Broodlords. Thors?Talked about them above. Vikings?Possible tech switch problem aside, in the end Vikings are simply not enough against Corruptors/Infestors. Even with the best splitting in the world (humanly speaking, I mean), Vikings inevitably tend to clump up when attacking, which means Fungal Growths will catch at least some of them, and then they will be food for Corruptors / Infested Terrans / more Fungals. Basically, Fungal Growth prevents Vikings to use their strength which is their long range; because speaking of values, it is not hard to see that the Corruptor does better in the toughness department (200 hps vs 125, 2 native armor vs 0). Flying Banelings—I mean, Ravens?So, the Raven—this “amazing unit of the future” which, strangely enough, is seldom seen outside of mirrors. For those who read those forums, you will always see that Raven guy who comes and teaches Terrans that “they bank 3k gas by lategame anyway,” so why not use that amazing HSM thing which will blow up your opponent's army (read: provided he's stupid enough not to micro his units[/strike)? Though you sometimes see Ravens in lategame TvZ play (don't know if Beastyqt still plays them sometimes, but this was one of the few players I saw using them; TLO was using them too), there are obvious and blatant issues which make it very hard to use them on a consistent basis. TimeRemember the part above about Terrans having the slowest production? Typically, when playing Marine/Tanks/Medivacs in midgame, Terrans will enter lategame with one Reactor Starport—maybe with 2 Starports if you have spared resources and scout the Broodlords transition. It means that to build your Raven fleet, you will have to build several Starports with Lab attached, all while holding your line (because the Zerg player will try to break your line with his Broodlords), then research HSM and Corvid Reactor, then build Ravens, then wait 90 sec for them to have enough energy to launch a single HSM. Now compare to Ghosts: they only require a Ghost Academy (40 sec) and Tech Labs on Barracks you already have, and depending on whether or not you have Moebius Reactor they come with 2 or 3 Snipes ready ( i. e. they can be useful as soon as they spawn, not at T+90s). What this means is that you can't really transition right away into Ravens off a standard Marines/Tank/Medivac midgame (even a mech midgame will seldom have more than 2 Starports, but they may have a Lab, so it could be a little bit easier for mech players); as costly and time-consuming as they are, in a standard game they're only viable in split map scenarii (or maybe past 4 bases for mech players who planned for a Raven transition). But then you run into the next issue: HSM rangeHSM range = 6
Fungal Growth range = 9 This simple fact makes it very difficult to use Ravens more than once, and this is why you see some people call them “flying Banelings”. Each time one of your Ravens moves forward to launch a HSM, he is at risk, because he enters the Zerg anti-air zone which is 9 range around the Infestors position. And 200 gas for possibly a single Missile which is not even guaranteed to hit a clump of units (remember: against HSM, Zerg players can still micro/spread their units) is simply too much. So, aside from the infrastructure/time problem, the main, critical issue with Ravens is that they simply lose the caster war. Both Infestors and High Templars are able to outrange Ravens with deadly spells which kills them in some way. And this is a very serious problem, because on every map resources are limited: at some point, you must trade cost-efficiently or you will simply end up losing the split map scenario. BattleCruisers?Corruptors + Fungal Growth (and even Neural Parasite). Enough said. Yes, I did see this very nice Polt vs [don't remember the Zerg, maybe an IM player] ladder game @ Shattered Temple, but he could probably have won with mass SCVs, and anyway Ghosts would have netted him the kill earlier and more efficiently. So… Ghosts.First, we need to dismiss the idea that Ghosts are an auto-win button against lategame Zerg. This is simply false. As proven in the Fin/fOrGG vs Leenock game @ Daybreak in GSL Code S Ro32, you have to carefully manage your Ghost squad, else one bad Fungal Growth goes through and you're in deep trouble. Ghosts have 100 hit points, so they're frail units for their high cost—which is fine given their potential, but I'm merely reminding you that Ghosts are neither immortal nor invincible. They take a lot of micro to use, and the more Broodlords there is, the harder it becomes to manage your Ghost squad. I'm also tired to hear that “Ghosts hard-counter tier3 Zerg”. This is not true. Immortals hard-counter Siege Tanks. The truth is Ghosts are a soft-counter: “Enough Ghosts with enough energy and careful micro are able to deal efficiently with Zerg tier3.” Which is very different from the usual “trololol Ghost auto-win button eznb” that you sometimes read on Live Report threads. As a Terran player, I say to Zerg players who are not convinced by this to play Terran against their own race (offracing against your own race really is a good experience anyway). You will quickly notice how fast your Ghosts fall each time you mismicro them. You will see that it takes a lot of resources and time to bank enough energy to be able to snipe a lot of Broodlords (or Ultralisks) and EMP Infestors. I mean, each time I enter lategame against Zerg, my purpose is to get this Ghost squad, but I can tell you it simply looks much easier when Mvp does it. Watching GSL, you may say “lol Ghost ez,” but then you can try it, even in a Unit test map, and you will see how hard it is to pull off, and how hard you will actually fail in a real game, desperately trying to micro your Ghost in a Broodlings sea while Broodlords relentlessly rain down death on your position. Are Ghosts too efficient against Ultralisks? The thing is, a lot of Zerg players (including progamers) simply have a terrible Ultralisks use, making either too much of them ( i. e. not enough support) or sending them to death in heavily fortified positions and then complaining about them being “horrible” or something. Like Broodlords, Ultralisks need support (Banelings and/or Infestors, and most importantly Zerglings) to do their job—but anyway, in the end, you likely won't win a split map scenario (and I'm talking about real split map, not 4/5 bases vs 3/4) against Terran with only Ultralisks, simply because, well, all melee units can be defended quite easily using chokes and mass ranged units behind defences; whether death comes from Snipes or something else is irrelevant at this point, I think you simply have to transition to Broodlords in a split map scenario, just as Protosses simply cannot afford to keep running on pure Blink Stalkers + Colossi against a mass Broodlords/Infestors/Spines split map scenario. I know, Ultralisks are tier3 while Blink Stalkers are not; still, regardless of tiers, there simply is some point beyond which some compositions are no more playable in some scenarii. For Ultralisks, the reason is quite self-explanatory: ranged units (especially air ones) get exponentially better while ground melee units do not (partly due to collision size issues). So basically, when looking at Ghosts vs Ultralisks skirmishes, you have to wonder if using Ultralisks was the right thing to do given the state of the game, i. e. if the Terran had enough time to bank full energy on 20+ Ghosts, it was probably not a good choice anyway to head this way. Ultralisks' effectiveness simply starts decreasing beyond some point. While they're viable at the beginning of the late game, I'm not convinced about their uses in split map scenarii in which both players are allowed to bank mass resources. Killing Infestors with 2 Snipes, down to 3, is basically irrelevant since Infestors will safely stand behind Broodlords if you can no longer kill them as fast and efficiently as now. I mean, even with the current Snipe, facing 15+ Broodlords with Infestor (and Overseers!) support is still a challenge even for the best players in the world—so how are Terrans supposed to deal with this if this silly change goes through? As stated above, even tech switch problems aside, Vikings, Thors and Ravens all have obvious problems. Sniping is a bit like a race against the clock anyway, since the longer your Ghosts take to kill Broodlords, the more Broodlords, Broodlings and your own Siege Tanks hurt them, so going up to 10 hits from 6 is simply stupid. Once again, even with the current Snipe, a lot of Terrans have difficulties in late game, because as stated above managing your Ghost squad is not easy at all—even pros fail it sometimes, so how are people with only two arms supposed to deal with this? And for people who will answer “don't let this happen,” do you realize how stupid it would be if one race had close to no chance by late game against some armies? All races should have fair chances to win by lategame, even against “the ultimate army”. This Snipe change simply means that Zergs will now be able to turtle into 20+ Broodlords with Corruptors/Infestors support, and then laugh at you because you won't have any efficient tool to deal with this.
As a protoss player who only watches TvZ (well I've seen a lot of them), I agree with this post, it's well put too. The Fin vs Leenock is really a good example of mass ghosts not being an insta gg tool. At the time I think Leenock was more skilled than Fin and he won, despite heavy ghost play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
