|
Recently, I saw a post on reddit located here talking about how 3:12 oracles could provoke problems for terran. I on the other hand disagree because there are many ways with scouting and build order adaptations that could change the outcome of the game if done properly even with greedy builds like 1 rax expand.
Here is a video I created to convey my points Here as well as a reddit thread Here
My Credintials Masters for 17 Seasons in Sc2 #2-6 Rank masters in NA
If you so choose to not watch the video then that is fine...I will out line why 3:12 oracles won't be a problem here in the post.
Scouting
Especially, in lotv scouting is much easier to do and not as risky towards your income since you start out with 12 workers now. You could scout the protoss after or before your barracks finishes to find out what all in they are going for depending on what map you are on.
here is a replay that shows an example of scouting for protoss and that you could either build a bunker in the main base or on top of the ramp and lift the cc in the natural to deal with what ever was scouted. http://spawningtool.com/29577/
Build order
I am really only covering one build order here that could deal with protoss all ins pretty nicely esp vs the 3:12 orcales having 7 marines out and a potential bunker on top of putting you in a solid macro position in the game. 1 Rax FE is still viable in legacy and I think something that can work over reapers. There are many terran build orders that you could even do that make it much safer for the terran to deal with all arrays of protoss cheese.
Conclusion
At first glance, Sc2 seems like things could be overpowered and not dealt with correctly, but the truth is there are ways to deal with things by reacting accordingly. If there are any disagreements I'd love to respond to any concerns or doubts.
|
Yeah, I watched the first video from the Reddit thread last night when Avilo was talking about it and TBH it is really true, I mean, seriously there is a lot of truth there.
|
Just skimmed the video at the top of the reddit post. Very disappointed that it barely goes into the specifics of the terran's build.
|
I would like changes to the Missile Turret, but not because of this, but because Air is insanely buffed and those Turrets don't do anything for what they cost in the later stages. Terran is still the slowest moving race, but they have the weakest static defense. On the other hand the good harassment of a Terran can force the enemy back t base, so you can move out. But I find this is really one dimensional.
|
On July 30 2015 21:08 Sogetsu wrote: Yeah, I watched the first video from the Reddit thread last night when Avilo was talking about it and TBH it is really true, I mean, seriously there is a lot of truth there.
Any high level replays to support claims?
|
On July 30 2015 21:34 FeyFey wrote: I would like changes to the Missile Turret, but not because of this, but because Air is insanely buffed and those Turrets don't do anything for what they cost in the later stages. Terran is still the slowest moving race, but they have the weakest static defense. On the other hand the good harassment of a Terran can force the enemy back t base, so you can move out. But I find this is really one dimensional.
WTF? So many many false statements.
1- "Massive air buffs". Air is mostly buffed for Terran in LotV (Banshee upgrade, Liberator, Medivac buff, BC teleport). Only the endgame air unit of other races has recieved buffs: Broodlords are minimally buffed (Turrets didn't counter Broodlords anyways because of the shorter range) and Carriers have not recieved any damage buff, so turrets perform vs interceptors exactly the same way than on WoL/HotS. However it is true that Carrier-based tactics are less risky now because Carriers become less exposed in general, but it doesn't affect Turret performance since turrets are static and deployed interceptors with the ability cannot be recalled.
2- Terran turrets are the best AA turrets in the game with 28 DPS, the cheapest cost (100), can be repaired, and have a +range upgrade (not that useful) and +2 armor upgrade that also applies onto every terran building. Cannons scale fairly worse with shield upgrades than turrets, and cannot be repaired. Spore crawlers do okayish, but also scale poorly. Even with armor mitigation, the possibility of repair and the possibility to upgrade them makes turrets very strong, specially considering that air armor upgrades come very very very late.
3- Terran is NOT the slowest moving race. Everything is decently mobile except Siege tanks (buffed mobility with Medivac now) and endgame mech units (Thor and BCs, which now have teleport). The lategame units of every race are slow. Protoss mobility is fairly more limited, for sure, and it's a very general agreement.
4- Terran has added a ton of improvements to mobility of Mech (Bio was already highly mobile). New units are mobile, Siege Tanks can go into Medivacs, BCs now teleport, and Banshees have a speed upgrade. With Liberators and SiegeTank+Medivacs you can now play high speed siege-resiege tactics. So not, it's not that Terran is one dimensional at all with MMM-all day/doomdrop tactics.
|
On July 30 2015 21:34 FeyFey wrote: I would like changes to the Missile Turret, but not because of this, but because Air is insanely buffed and those Turrets don't do anything for what they cost in the later stages. Terran is still the slowest moving race, but they have the weakest static defense. On the other hand the good harassment of a Terran can force the enemy back t base, so you can move out. But I find this is really one dimensional. Just out of curiosity what makes you think terran is a slow moving race? esp considering bio is very mobile and versatile including tanks can be picked up now.
|
Just watched the replay. Bunk is nice and all, but do you think that's enough ? the oracle can perfectly kill a lot of scv and even marines if they have to move out of the bunker because the range isn't enough (even with +1 range from bunker). Not to mention that the terran can't move out. Which makes protoss really powerful. The best defenss is to attack, and that's especially true if you keep playing defensive like this.
|
I'm for anything that removes luckbased, deadly play. Which proxy oracle strategies are. Even more so now that Terran has to wall the front against adepts (which is a strong buff to proxied voidray and immortal strategies; strategies that profit from the terran building a turret in his mineral line early). I can only imagine how pissed I would be if I thought a proxy oracle was coming, but it was a proxied robo/prism and then the 4gate adept arrives in my base while I have a useless engineering bay and turret in the mineral line.
|
On July 31 2015 00:20 Big J wrote: I'm for anything that removes luckbased, deadly play. Which proxy oracle strategies are. Even more so now that Terran has to wall the front against adepts (which is a strong buff to proxied voidray and immortal strategies; strategies that profit from the terran building a turret in his mineral line early). I can only imagine how pissed I would be if I thought a proxy oracle was coming, but it was a proxied robo/prism and then the 4gate adept arrives in my base while I have a useless engineering bay and turret in the mineral line. This. It's not the fact that Oracles are not counterable it's the fact that they are hard to scout and you have to prepare for the other bullshit Protoss throws at you. It needs fixing and yeah maybe top level masters can scout it and deal with it but it sure screws the rest of us over.
|
At first glance, Sc2 seems like things could be overpowered and not dealt with correctly, but the truth is there are ways to deal with things by reacting accordingly. If there are any disagreements I'd love to respond to any concerns or doubts.
When people talk about Ebay-requirement on turret its not as much about balance (e.g. whether there exists 1 or 2 builds that are relatively safe), but rather about whether it promotes build order diversity or not. If you are very limited in the type of safe openings, it restricts the amount of viable openings in the game.
For instance, I think it would be alot more interesting if terran could get away with building only 1-3 marines in the early game and going straight to tanks, banshee's or whatever. It would open op for a alot of new ways to play the race.
|
On July 31 2015 01:48 Hider wrote:Show nested quote + At first glance, Sc2 seems like things could be overpowered and not dealt with correctly, but the truth is there are ways to deal with things by reacting accordingly. If there are any disagreements I'd love to respond to any concerns or doubts.
When people talk about Ebay-requirement on turret its not as much about balance (e.g. whether there exists 1 or 2 builds that are relatively safe), but rather about whether it promotes build order diversity or not. If you are very limited in the type of safe openings, it restricts the amount of viable openings in the game. For instance, I think it would be alot more interesting if terran could get away with building only 1-3 marines in the early game and going straight to tanks, banshee's or whatever. It would open op for a alot of new ways to play the race.
You have to think about the build order diversity of the other races as well though. If terrans can now get away with building only 1-3 marines before teching, it probably means that zerg and protoss early agression options have been limited, which would arguably decrease the over all build order diversity in the game, although terran build order diversity might have been lifted. I believe this was the reason blizz brought the engi bay requirement for turrets back.
Anyway, I haven't thought about how no engi bay requirement for turrets would work out, I just wanted to point this out.
|
On July 31 2015 01:48 Hider wrote:Show nested quote + At first glance, Sc2 seems like things could be overpowered and not dealt with correctly, but the truth is there are ways to deal with things by reacting accordingly. If there are any disagreements I'd love to respond to any concerns or doubts.
When people talk about Ebay-requirement on turret its not as much about balance (e.g. whether there exists 1 or 2 builds that are relatively safe), but rather about whether it promotes build order diversity or not. If you are very limited in the type of safe openings, it restricts the amount of viable openings in the game. For instance, I think it would be alot more interesting if terran could get away with building only 1-3 marines in the early game and going straight to tanks, banshee's or whatever. It would open op for a alot of new ways to play the race. I agree. Would be nice if Zerg could skip the lings and go straight for ultralisks. Screw early game units. Everybody should be able to turtle all the way to late game!
|
On July 31 2015 00:20 Big J wrote: I'm for anything that removes luckbased, deadly play. Which proxy oracle strategies are. Even more so now that Terran has to wall the front against adepts (which is a strong buff to proxied voidray and immortal strategies; strategies that profit from the terran building a turret in his mineral line early). I can only imagine how pissed I would be if I thought a proxy oracle was coming, but it was a proxied robo/prism and then the 4gate adept arrives in my base while I have a useless engineering bay and turret in the mineral line.
This is a very strong point.
|
On July 31 2015 02:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 01:48 Hider wrote: At first glance, Sc2 seems like things could be overpowered and not dealt with correctly, but the truth is there are ways to deal with things by reacting accordingly. If there are any disagreements I'd love to respond to any concerns or doubts.
When people talk about Ebay-requirement on turret its not as much about balance (e.g. whether there exists 1 or 2 builds that are relatively safe), but rather about whether it promotes build order diversity or not. If you are very limited in the type of safe openings, it restricts the amount of viable openings in the game. For instance, I think it would be alot more interesting if terran could get away with building only 1-3 marines in the early game and going straight to tanks, banshee's or whatever. It would open op for a alot of new ways to play the race. I agree. Would be nice if Zerg could skip the lings and go straight for ultralisks. Screw early game units. Everybody should be able to turtle all the way to late game!
I agree insightful comment. Now please to back to making strawmans in the other sections of this forum and leave the Starcraft community for people who are interested in actual discussions.
Thanks in advance.
You have to think about the build order diversity of the other races as well though. If terrans can now get away with building only 1-3 marines before teching, it probably means that zerg and protoss early agression options have been limited, which would arguably decrease the over all build order diversity in the game, although terran build order diversity might have been lifted. I believe this was the reason blizz brought the engi bay requirement for turrets back.
Sure, give all races more diversity. That's kinda what Photon Overcharge did but in a very unhealthy way. I think no ebay-requirement with some tweaks/buffs to DT's/Oracles/Banshee's would make for a more interesting early game. Harass options would be viable, while not making certain builds unviable.
|
there is one matchup where Terrans are concerned and why they want the turret change reverted and that's TvP. Proxy Oracle or proxy voidray is almost impossible to hold if you're fast expanding or climbing the tech tree. I understand one base aggression is part of the game but for the terran to defend one base aggression it requires 300+ minerals in static defense. Early in beta there was a proxy starport voidray build that was devastating.... even when the cyclone could shoot up w/ full dmg..... I dont understand why one base builds are so strong... obviously if your opponent is ignorant and doesn't scout they should be punished..... but bunkered ramps with2nd cc in main and tanks and marines and pulled scvs at ramp doesnt make sense when the toss can just expand behind it or make for exciting game play when neither play wants to attack down or up a ramp.
|
On July 31 2015 02:46 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2015 01:48 Hider wrote: At first glance, Sc2 seems like things could be overpowered and not dealt with correctly, but the truth is there are ways to deal with things by reacting accordingly. If there are any disagreements I'd love to respond to any concerns or doubts.
When people talk about Ebay-requirement on turret its not as much about balance (e.g. whether there exists 1 or 2 builds that are relatively safe), but rather about whether it promotes build order diversity or not. If you are very limited in the type of safe openings, it restricts the amount of viable openings in the game. For instance, I think it would be alot more interesting if terran could get away with building only 1-3 marines in the early game and going straight to tanks, banshee's or whatever. It would open op for a alot of new ways to play the race. I agree. Would be nice if Zerg could skip the lings and go straight for ultralisks. Screw early game units. Everybody should be able to turtle all the way to late game! I agree insightful comment. Now please to back to making strawmans in the other sections of this forum and leave the Starcraft community for people who are interested in actual discussions. Thanks in advance. Show nested quote +You have to think about the build order diversity of the other races as well though. If terrans can now get away with building only 1-3 marines before teching, it probably means that zerg and protoss early agression options have been limited, which would arguably decrease the over all build order diversity in the game, although terran build order diversity might have been lifted. I believe this was the reason blizz brought the engi bay requirement for turrets back. Sure, give all races more diversity. That's kinda what Photon Overcharge did but in a very unhealthy way. I think no ebay-requirement with some tweaks/buffs to DT's/Oracles/Banshee's would make for a more interesting early game. Harass options would be viable, while not making certain builds unviable.
I suddenly remember why I shy away from the SC2 parts of the forum. It's because people make silly unrealistic proposals based on completely nonsensical proposals of how they want to play the game (skip marines and go straight for tanks/banshees while being safe), and then when someone points that out (albeit in a facetious manner, I'll give you that), you get crapped on. Have fun in your circle jerk that Blizzard will never listen to.
|
I am not very thrilled from any suggestion that says "remove X requirement for Y", because this has been happening too much already, too many things have been "solved" or "improved" by removing some research and just building its benefit in. I think this approach leads to less diversity, not more - the more things you have accessible without investment, the less your position depends on what you did before, the more unified the game is. In particular, I think this should not be the method of choice of balancing. If proxy Oracle is an issue causing unpleasant state for the terran, then the better approach would be to nerf it. Its ability to instantly kill an unprepared oponent is a little silly anyway. It needs to be put into a sweet spot where you can hurt your oponent some, if you play it well, but be a little behind, if you don't - that can be achieved changing cost, buildtime, stargate cost, lowering damage, increasing energy requirement etc...
|
On July 31 2015 03:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 02:46 Hider wrote:On July 31 2015 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2015 01:48 Hider wrote: At first glance, Sc2 seems like things could be overpowered and not dealt with correctly, but the truth is there are ways to deal with things by reacting accordingly. If there are any disagreements I'd love to respond to any concerns or doubts.
When people talk about Ebay-requirement on turret its not as much about balance (e.g. whether there exists 1 or 2 builds that are relatively safe), but rather about whether it promotes build order diversity or not. If you are very limited in the type of safe openings, it restricts the amount of viable openings in the game. For instance, I think it would be alot more interesting if terran could get away with building only 1-3 marines in the early game and going straight to tanks, banshee's or whatever. It would open op for a alot of new ways to play the race. I agree. Would be nice if Zerg could skip the lings and go straight for ultralisks. Screw early game units. Everybody should be able to turtle all the way to late game! I agree insightful comment. Now please to back to making strawmans in the other sections of this forum and leave the Starcraft community for people who are interested in actual discussions. Thanks in advance. You have to think about the build order diversity of the other races as well though. If terrans can now get away with building only 1-3 marines before teching, it probably means that zerg and protoss early agression options have been limited, which would arguably decrease the over all build order diversity in the game, although terran build order diversity might have been lifted. I believe this was the reason blizz brought the engi bay requirement for turrets back. Sure, give all races more diversity. That's kinda what Photon Overcharge did but in a very unhealthy way. I think no ebay-requirement with some tweaks/buffs to DT's/Oracles/Banshee's would make for a more interesting early game. Harass options would be viable, while not making certain builds unviable. I suddenly remember why I shy away from the SC2 parts of the forum. It's because people make silly unrealistic proposals based on completely nonsensical proposals of how they want to play the game (skip marines and go straight for tanks/banshees while being safe), and then when someone points that out (albeit in a facetious manner, I'll give you that), you get crapped on. Have fun in your circle jerk that Blizzard will never listen to.
He didn't say skip marines, he said 1-3marines before teching. That's quite a difference imo and the reason why I can understand that his response isn't all nice either. Why shouldn't it be enough for Terran to rely on 1-3marines+tech when the tech already includes that you get quite powerful units out in a possible defensive situation during a rush? As a comparison, Protoss can expand in HotS and WoL against Zerg of something like 1canon. Against Terran in HotS of like 1stalker+1mothershipcore AND tech. Zerg often takes a third base against Protoss of 1-2queens and 2-4zerglings. Even when you don't build these low amounts of units or react badly in many situations in which the opponent plays a somewhat standard build you won't die. Oracles vs Terran are a big exception, they can be played as a macro build for Protoss but it's insta-death for Terran if he reacts wrong, i.e. doesn't either have a turret or a ton of marines.
Happy birthday btw.
|
On July 30 2015 21:34 FeyFey wrote: I would like changes to the Missile Turret, but not because of this, but because Air is insanely buffed and those Turrets don't do anything for what they cost in the later stages. Terran is still the slowest moving race, but they have the weakest static defense. On the other hand the good harassment of a Terran can force the enemy back t base, so you can move out. But I find this is really one dimensional. Get the armor upgrade from the engineering bay. Seriously, it works great.
|
|
|
|