EPTIt is common to see terrans in the endgame being short on minerals while floating 2-3k gas
I kind of wish ghosts would go back to being 150/150 or even 100/200, so terran would have a gas sink like infestors and high templars.
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 501
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
mihajovics
179 Posts
It is common to see terrans in the endgame being short on minerals while floating 2-3k gas I kind of wish ghosts would go back to being 150/150 or even 100/200, so terran would have a gas sink like infestors and high templars. | ||
|
FetTerBender
Germany1393 Posts
On May 27 2013 22:09 mihajovics wrote: Yes, MULEs are great, but terran in general, bio in particular is very mineral heavy. It is common to see terrans in the endgame being short on minerals while floating 2-3k gas I kind of wish ghosts would go back to being 150/150 or even 100/200, so terran would have a gas sink like infestors and high templars. Ravens? | ||
|
rpgalon
Brazil1069 Posts
On May 27 2013 21:35 Goldfish wrote: Regarding the Widow Mine debate - I like the idea of widow mines targeting an enemy, the target is red (like the new seeker missile). Another thing is, I definitely think Widow Mines AoE should have a max target count of 10. In most cases, this doesn't really change much but it does reduce the possibility of 1 Widow Mine impacting the game is a huge amount (unlucky or lucky widow mine hits that change the entire outcome of the game are reduced, and things that change the entire game due to 1 small thing is something I dislike since it makes things more random than it should be). You mean options from macro mechanics, how the mechanics work themselves, or balance? In terms of options, it's not like the Queen or OC offer that much diversity since it's usually straight forward on what a player should do (With Queens, you usually have a set of queens that larva inject and another set that spread creep exclusively anyway). OCs, it just depends on when you want to scan and if not, drop MULEs (or if you're supply blocked, drop a supply). In terms of how those mechanics work themselves (and whether the difficulty is balanced for all races), the difficulty of macro mechanics varies because not every race is easy or harder to play in all areas. Zerg probably has the hardest with creep spread and larva injects but mastery of those abilities are more rewarding and make other areas of play (like macro and unit movement) much easier than the other 2 races. Terran has the easiest macro mechanics (just dropping MULEs, and if they're suppy block, drop a supply) but their units require and rely more on mechanical play than the other 2. Now in terms of balance (how these impact the overall balance and if they should change), you have to take into account things like Protoss ability to reinforce areas easily (which also means defender's advantage doesn't matter as much for the Protoss opponent which is a big deal) and other advantages like that. Rallying units and getting them to their group is harder for both Zerg and Terran than Protoss. So, each race has strengths and weakness and it's part of the point of having 3 races in the first place. I mean, if the debate is why Protoss doesn't have Reavers with shuttle micro or something like in BW then that's understandable, but the debates about races in terms of macro mechanics (chrono, mule, queen) isn't really a big deal IMO. Doesn't protoss also have to rally from the robo/stargate? anyway, I agree with you. I think FF is not a problem, there is already builds in PvX that does not need any sentry, I think the power of a sentry is really well balanced for it's 50/100 cost. I do agree that warpgate units are weaker (cost for cost) than the zerg/terrans T1, and that is because of the Warpgate mechanic... but I consider it a racial trait, it's a balanced trade. I think people are exaggerating a lot when they say protoss needs a complete redesign, I think the race is in a good position. If you consider what blizzard wants the races to do (DK said he wanted the races to use a lot of different units in their compositions and a lot of different builds)... by that statement, protoss is the best designed race. the only unit that protoss does not use is the carrier and that is not because they didn't try to use it. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 27 2013 21:35 Goldfish wrote: Now in terms of balance (how these impact the overall balance and if they should change), you have to take into account things like Protoss ability to reinforce areas easily (which also means defender's advantage doesn't matter as much for the Protoss opponent which is a big deal) and other advantages like that. Rallying units and getting them to their group is harder for both Zerg and Terran than Protoss. So, each race has strengths and weakness and it's part of the point of having 3 races in the first place. I mean, if the debate is why Protoss doesn't have Reavers with shuttle micro or something like in BW then that's understandable, but the debates about races in terms of macro mechanics (chrono, mule, queen) isn't really a big deal IMO. Rallying for zerg is actually much easier. While mass producing you just select the eggs that you have just morphed and add them to the control group. This is something that many pros do and not only pros. | ||
|
mihajovics
179 Posts
I think Ravens are much more situational than HT-s or infestors. | ||
|
Prog455
Denmark970 Posts
On May 27 2013 22:54 mihajovics wrote: I think Ravens are much more situational than HT-s or infestors. Indeed - Storms and Fungals will almost always do some kind of damage. With Ravens on the flip side, it seems that Seeker Missile is dodged more often than not | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 27 2013 23:01 Prog455 wrote: Indeed - Storms and Fungals will almost always do some kind of damage. With Ravens on the flip side, it seems that Seeker Missile is dodged more often than not Thats not the problem. The problem is production. When you get into the gassituation to decide upon building two marines or a raven, you build the raven. However, your decision is to build 4marines or a starport with techlab... | ||
|
CakeSauc3
United States1437 Posts
On May 27 2013 23:01 Prog455 wrote: Indeed - Storms and Fungals will almost always do some kind of damage. With Ravens on the flip side, it seems that Seeker Missile is dodged more often than not And, don't forget, Ravens still cost 100 minerals. For being so hit-and-miss, I really wish they would cost closer to 50/150 or something like that. It'll always amaze me that the Raven costs more than both the HT and Infestor, but is a joke of a spellcaster compared to both of those powerhouse units. And I agree with the person that said he wished ghosts would still cost 150/150, or lol, why can't they cost 100/200? Minerals are so precious for Terran in the lategame. I think the original patch notes for why the cost of the ghost became more mineral-heavy was that Blizzard was encouraging us to get them earlier in the game - but after nerfing the ghost so heavily, "ghost rushes" are dead, and so the only point in the game where ghosts are useful is in the lategame, which is when Terran has plenty of gas but is very, very tight on minerals. Therefore, Blizzard's intended "buff" by making the ghost "cheaper" has actually backfired. | ||
|
Coffeeling
Finland250 Posts
On May 27 2013 22:16 rpgalon wrote: I do agree that warpgate units are weaker (cost for cost) than the zerg/terrans T1, and that is because of the Warpgate mechanic... but I consider it a racial trait, it's a balanced trade. It has all kinds of screwed-up side effects like Toss defense being bad due to bad gateway units, inability to snipe reinforcements, effects on army trades and ability to pressure after that, camping production. And that's not even getting into the mechanics making nearly all your production auto-proxied with no downside (typically proxying is a big investment and very risky because it leaves your base vulnerable. 100 mineral Pylons make a mockery of this. And then you pile on the free production cycle...) It's just a bad multiplayer mechanic with bad effects on game design. Exciting? Yes. But should be left to the single player campaign where all that matters is that things are awesome and fun to use (jetpack lings say hello). In multiplayer design the bar is much, much higher. | ||
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
On May 27 2013 05:18 nichan wrote: Am I the only one that thinks that when it comes to the macro economy of the game protoss gets the short end of the stick. Terran has mules Zerg has inject protoss has chrono boost but i think protoss hurts the most when they get their workers kill. I have to disagree. -Zerg has an ability that gives them more production that they MUST use for a most of the game. They can give up that extra production to heal units or get creep. -Terran can get a high efficiency worker, or an instant scout. -Protoss can get faster workers, faster upgrades, faster high tech units...and you don't even have to use it. Chrono boost is super versatile. Lose workers early on? Chrono your nexus. Get behind in upgrades? Chrono your forge. The mechanics of using chronoboost are also trivial. In that sense, protoss macro mechanics take the least APM and is the most versatile IMO | ||
|
rpgalon
Brazil1069 Posts
On May 27 2013 23:36 Coffee Zombie wrote: It has all kinds of screwed-up side effects like Toss defense being bad due to bad gateway units, inability to snipe reinforcements, effects on army trades and ability to pressure after that, camping production. And that's not even getting into the mechanics making nearly all your production auto-proxied with no downside (typically proxying is a big investment and very risky because it leaves your base vulnerable. 100 mineral Pylons make a mockery of this. And then you pile on the free production cycle...) It's just a bad multiplayer mechanic with bad effects on game design. Exciting? Yes. But should be left to the single player campaign where all that matters is that things are awesome and fun to use (jetpack lings say hello). In multiplayer design the bar is much, much higher. I don't think toss is weak in defense and those side effects make the race unique. I could say the same about the fact that zerg can have no units till the last second, or that they can change their composition in the late-game whenever they want. or that marine is too good compared to the other T1 and mules, etc... I think the BIGGEST reason why some people don't enjoy PvX, is because they want to see shit die, and the strong point of the protoss race is to not allow anything you have die. Anyway, I like the current state of the game, I enjoy every matchup (-ZvZ, but I'm eager to see what the changes will do to that matchup). | ||
|
Prog455
Denmark970 Posts
On May 28 2013 00:09 rpgalon wrote: I don't think toss is weak in defense and those side effects make the race unique. I could say the same about the fact that zerg can have no units till the last second, or that they can change their composition in the late-game whenever they want. or that marine is too good compared to the other T1 and mules, etc... I think the BIGGEST reason why some people don't enjoy PvX, is because they want to see shit die, and the strong point of the protoss race is to not allow anything you have die. Anyway, I like the current state of the game, I enjoy every matchup (-ZvZ, but I'm eager to see what the changes will do to that matchup). I also think that Protoss has a very strong defense early game, but regardless of making Protoss unique or not, warp gate has always been a bad idea. Protoss can still be unique in that sense it has the strongest a-move. Having the strongest a-move AND the strongest cheese/ timing attack is what makes the race bad | ||
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On May 28 2013 00:17 Prog455 wrote: I also think that Protoss has a very strong defense early game, but regardless of making Protoss unique or not, warp gate has always been a bad idea. Protoss can still be unique in that sense it has the strongest a-move. Having the strongest a-move AND the strongest cheese/ timing attack is what makes the race bad Holy bias batman. There is no "strongest cheese" or timing attack. Protoss doesn't have the "strongest a-move army" - that would be Ghost/BC/Viking. But I guess someone like you wouldn't realize that the best players control a lategame protoss army with 4 different hotkeys. Also if anything the mass bio/viking timing before storm is currently the strongest timing in the game. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On May 27 2013 20:46 DarkLordOlli wrote: Because terrans are not greedy enough behind it yet imo. You can easily take a fast third and from there on you're already ahead economically. Which means you should be able to easily go 2 starports or get a very quick Ghost Academy + more barracks, whatever you need. You can do that sort of powering because you're ahead in economy. If you keep up the pressure or threaten it, protoss' third will be extremely delayed and that means their tech switches will be as well. So then just do a timing attack with good upgrades + whatever tech you need + great production and profit. That's what most people haven't figured out yet for some reason but that's pretty much why some terrans have a ridiculous winrate vs protoss. Once it catches on, there'll be high winrates for terran. Also, I've yet to see a terran boost a godamn medivac in and out a protoss base to scout. Which they should. Same way protosses use their MSC/phoenix/oracles to scout. That's simply because its much more beneficial to stay on the offensive as a terran to keep the protoss army from reaching that critical army comp. Terran has never been about abusing greedy play, having an economical advantage matters very little when your bioball is going to be weaker than a fully teched protoss army anyway. Its much better to try to keep the protoss army small or at the very least try to keep killing their gas-heavy units, forcing them to make a gateway-heavy army that the bioball is actually competitive against. If you actually try to play passive greedy you have to go for a huge ball of ghosts and vikings, but even that is a fragile unit comp and very weak to the protoss attacking before you get to that critical mass of ghosts. I've only really seen EU terrans use that style anyway. The reason terran dont use medivacs to scout is that the boost isn't long enough to get a full scout, and its more likely to run into stalkers/templar/cannons while in the protoss base. Terrans usually just have a turret in the mineral line as they are less likely to get dropped anyway. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 28 2013 00:09 rpgalon wrote: I don't think toss is weak in defense and those side effects make the race unique. I could say the same about the fact that zerg can have no units till the last second, or that they can change their composition in the late-game whenever they want. or that marine is too good compared to the other T1 and mules, etc... I think the BIGGEST reason why some people don't enjoy PvX, is because they want to see shit die, and the strong point of the protoss race is to not allow anything you have die. Anyway, I like the current state of the game, I enjoy every matchup (-ZvZ, but I'm eager to see what the changes will do to that matchup). The bolded part I agree strongly on. When things fight, I want both sides to take losses. The highhealth+shields+blink+forcefield+low dps often makes it so that none of the standard Protoss units is particularily expendable. Thus Protoss sucide missions all have little reward (while a drop with 8marines, or a handful of zerglings - who even counts those? - can do a lot of shit and if it doesn't, it's not like you just lose). And combats often end in onesided stomps, as Protoss either kills the stuff before its own stuff dies, or dies before doing significant damage. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
| ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On May 28 2013 01:32 DarkLordOlli wrote: I wasn't talking about passively greedy. Aggressively greedy is the way to go. Threaten drops, be greedy behind it since protoss can't move out. Drops aren't as threatening as you think bro. Any decent protoss will see your lack of army and either proceed to force an engagement or just expand himself. Then the terran is stuck playing a passive game. Generally its better to trust the pros judgement instead of saying this is how they should be playing instead. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
On May 28 2013 01:39 Bagi wrote: Drops aren't as threatening as you think bro. Any decent protoss will see your lack of army and either proceed to force an engagement or just expand himself. Then the terran is stuck playing a passive game. Generally its better to trust the pros judgement instead of saying this is how they should be playing instead. ... I said earlier that korean terrans like Innovation and Flash are playing exactly as I described. Hence their ridiculous winrates. Drops are more threatening than you think. The only reason why they shouldn't work is if your decisionmaking when to go in/where, etc. or your multitasking isn't up to par. That's really got nothing to do with protoss though. Did you see the huge analysis of Rain vs Flash? It's that style I'm talking about. Rain's build was tailored to counter exactly that - but the only reason that build worked out as it did is because Flash is predictable as hell. You only need enough army to threaten drops. That's all you need. The main reason why protoss can't take an earlier third is because they'd be stretched too thin, which means they either have their whole army in one place and have a base/tech/probes sniped (MMM DPS kills buildings & probes pretttttyyyyyyy fast) or you lose chunks of your army because splitting up a protoss army is almost impossible against good terrans. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
Btw Innovation has a 30% winrate against protoss according to TLPD. | ||
|
Topdoller
United Kingdom3860 Posts
On May 28 2013 01:53 Bagi wrote: Please point out games where they do this, and not just games where they do regular aggressive builds but outmultitask their opponent and get ahead in macro because of it. Btw Innovation has a 30% winrate against protoss according to TLPD. Does anyone care if Innovation has a 30% winrate v Protoss?. Just because he is flavor of the month doesn't mean he is a god like player. Lets put it in perspective hes won nothing of note in SC1 or SC2 so far. | ||
| ||
