"We’ve just published a new version of the StarCraft II Balance Test Map to the Custom Games list titled "Bel'Shir Vestige LE (2.0.11 Balance v1.1)". As you may be aware, we decided to tweak a couple of the changes proposed in the previous Balance Test Map for the reasons mentioned in David Kim's recent forum post. Thank you very much for your play testing and feedback on the last test map. The experiences and thoughts you sent our way contributed to the changes below, and we're ready for a new round of testing.
During this time, please keep in mind that none of the changes listed below are final. Our plan is to first consider each change, and test additional changes after reviewing your feedback, if necessary. Now, let's have a look at what you'll be testing:
Protoss
Oracle
Revelation casting range has returned to 9.
Units that burrow or cloak while under the effects of Revelation will once again be revealed after unburrowing or uncloaking.
Terran
Widow Mine
Sentinel Missiles splash damage radius has returned to 1.75.
Sentinel Missiles now deal reduced damage to units caught within its splash radius based on their distance from the target:
40 damage within 1.25 radius
20 damage from 1.25 to 1.5 radius
10 damage from 1.5 to 1.75 radius
Once again, feedback based on play testing is the most helpful information you can share with us. We kindly ask that you spend some time playing games on the balance test map before offering your thoughts on the changes above.
As always, thank you for your continued feedback and support. We’d like to restate that we’re trying out these changes to see how they affect current gameplay, and none of them are set in stone. Once you feel you’ve had enough time to test thoroughly, we welcome you to join us in this discussion thread."
Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
+ 10 dmg to shields.
Good thing against immortals, yeah :3? Still keeps them useless against zerg anyways.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Pretty much all of the changes are in the right direction, and the only ones they don't go through with are the ones that the community shits all over.
They aren't willing to make HUGE changes in the middle of HotS; game redesigns are for LotV.
I don't understand the whole revelation buff. Seems like such a niche thing. It's not going to help the oracle get any more usage mid-game (which i still don't understand why that is necessary. Protoss has harassment options IE the warp prism, regular Zealot warp ins, DTs) If DK wants protoss to stop playing so defensively wouldn't the best option be nerffing some of the defensive units and buffing the core gateway army?
Why not have revelation reveal cloaked or burrowed units as well? That seems like a more elegant solution, and it wouldn't be overpowered. The only unit I can really see it affecting is swarmhosts.
On October 15 2013 02:50 Zambies wrote: I don't understand the whole revelation buff. Seems like such a niche thing. It's not going to help the oracle get any more usage mid-game (which i still don't understand why that is necessary. Protoss has harassment options IE the warp prism, regular Zealot warp ins, DTs) If DK wants protoss to stop playing so defensively wouldn't the best option be nerffing some of the defensive units and buffing the core gateway army?
They want to promote the usage of oracle as a way to keep track of enemies' army. Essentially their second function, everyone forgets about.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
It's a TEST map.
You want him to try random balance changes here instead of in the live version of the game.
Also, bio-mech versus zerg could be interesting: - set up positions with mines, turrets, siege tanks, thors - use your newfound (positional) map control to do more targeted drops
On October 15 2013 02:49 Fission wrote: I was kinda hoping they'd stick with the WM nerf but maybe also change the viper blinding cloud radius
Vipers are already so good VS mech. This would be way over kill for something so small as a the WM. No need to buff radius just allow blinding clouds to actually kill the range of the WM trigger radius (maybe not even fire at all under blinding cloud)
At least mine shouldn't be nerfed to the ground this time. Good thing too as they refuse to make a meaningful tank buff. Of course now the 'variety' is gone too but that was just a excuse anyway.
On October 15 2013 02:49 Fission wrote: I was kinda hoping they'd stick with the WM nerf but maybe also change the viper blinding cloud radius
Vipers are already so good VS mech. This would be way over kill for something so small as a the WM. No need to buff radius just allow blinding clouds to actually kill the range of the WM trigger radius (maybe not even fire at all under blinding cloud)
Oh, I meant change the radius of the Blinding Cloud by making it smaller. My reasoning is that a minor/moderate cloud nerf combined with the tank buff could go a long way to making mech play more possible.
Revelation buff is a huge against Swarm Hosts. Now Protoss can always check where Swarm Hosts are moving and where they are burrowed, meaning that Protoss can more easily avoid fighting with Swarm Hosts.
As Zerg, I want to see Mutalisk nerf and Nydus buff.
On October 15 2013 02:50 Zambies wrote: I don't understand the whole revelation buff. Seems like such a niche thing. It's not going to help the oracle get any more usage mid-game (which i still don't understand why that is necessary. Protoss has harassment options IE the warp prism, regular Zealot warp ins, DTs) If DK wants protoss to stop playing so defensively wouldn't the best option be nerffing some of the defensive units and buffing the core gateway army?
They want to promote the usage of oracle as a way to keep track of enemies' army. Essentially their second function, everyone forgets about.
Which would be awesome. So why are they taking away a much more general buff to revelation than can help in every match-up and just limiting to something the only zergs can do (beside WM) I want to see both buffs. I think its stupid that Zergs can just get out of revelation if they have burrow and a half a second to think.
They should just make Envision a mobile sensor tower and add detection to Revelation IMO. Those spells are definitely way too niche to prioritize spending energy on tracking rather than the big potential of Pulsar Beam.
The widow mine change looks good on paper. Seems like they're trying to phase out mines vs everything and slowly trying to work Tanks into viability (not sure if that's the right word?). It'd be nice if Tanks got a vs P buff as well, but I'm not sure if +vs shields can even work with Immortals.
On October 15 2013 02:49 Fission wrote: I was kinda hoping they'd stick with the WM nerf but maybe also change the viper blinding cloud radius
Vipers are already so good VS mech. This would be way over kill for something so small as a the WM. No need to buff radius just allow blinding clouds to actually kill the range of the WM trigger radius (maybe not even fire at all under blinding cloud)
I wish blinding cloud would effect WM, but blinding cloud's radius were reduced by quite a bit.
Also, Terran needs a better way to fight Vipers. Watching Flash vs Curious the other day was downright depressing.
I really like the WM change. Don't know about oracles though. Will players interrupt phoenix or voidray production just so they can cast revelation? Most likely, oracles will get picked off, so I don't see players continunally interrupting stargate production time for a single spell.
On October 15 2013 02:49 Fission wrote: I was kinda hoping they'd stick with the WM nerf but maybe also change the viper blinding cloud radius
Vipers are already so good VS mech. This would be way over kill for something so small as a the WM. No need to buff radius just allow blinding clouds to actually kill the range of the WM trigger radius (maybe not even fire at all under blinding cloud)
I wish blinding cloud would effect WM, but blinding cloud's radius were reduced by quite a bit.
Also, Terran needs a better way to fight Vipers. Watching Flash vs Curious the other day was downright depressing.
I just wish blinding cloud reduced attack range by a fixed amount rather than to melee range. Having it -5 range would make everything else minus Collossi with thermal lance melee already so I don't get why it needs to be such an overkill for tanks.
So they decided to lessen the nerf on the mines after they realized that the tank buff does absolutely nothing and would in no way promote people to use tanks in TvZ or TvP in combination with mines? Sounds legit. This is not enough imo, since it will still 1 shot most key ground unit (lings, banes) but mines will be weaker against mutalisk.
Edit: I guess another 3-6 months of bio + mines is in my vision if this goes through.
On October 15 2013 02:49 Fission wrote: I was kinda hoping they'd stick with the WM nerf but maybe also change the viper blinding cloud radius
Vipers are already so good VS mech. This would be way over kill for something so small as a the WM. No need to buff radius just allow blinding clouds to actually kill the range of the WM trigger radius (maybe not even fire at all under blinding cloud)
I wish blinding cloud would effect WM, but blinding cloud's radius were reduced by quite a bit.
Also, Terran needs a better way to fight Vipers. Watching Flash vs Curious the other day was downright depressing.
I just wish blinding cloud reduced attack range by a fixed amount rather than to melee range. Having it -5 range would make everything else minus Collossi with thermal lance melee already so I don't get why it needs to be such an overkill for tanks.
I think DongRaeGu needs a nerf to the widow mine because his muta strategy is unbeatable once the widow mine is finally nerfed. I bet if DongRaeGu was a terran, we would all be here discussing a widow mine buff, lol
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
+ 10 dmg to shields.
Good thing against immortals, yeah :3? Still keeps them useless against zerg anyways.
This would affect every unit except immortals. I think it would be great to actually see the Tank vs Immortal dynamic play out in a game. Immortals theoretically counter tanks with their hardened shield, but the rest of the Protoss army already does well enough against tanks that the immortal never really seems necessary. Hardened shield is a cool ability, but it never really gets a chance to shine because aside from tank shots and other immortal shots, there's nothing left to block that has a large effect on the game. Everywhere else it would be notably useful (Nukes, Yamato Cannon, Widow Mines) the immortals end up taking full damage anyway because these things all count as spells.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
It's been T favored since release and I don't think it's becoming zerg favored right now. Terran just isn't winning 60% of the games anymore.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
It's been T favored since release and I don't think it's becoming zerg favored right now. Terran just isn't winning 60% of the games anymore.
Dude that's flawed statistics though because you can't count things such as cheese or all-ins. Even the best brood war maps (such as Neo Harmony or Gaia) took so much heat because it was during a period of terran dominating on ALL maps, except when there is a map which has approximately 50/50 across all 3 matchups, then people complain that the winrate for TvP and TvZ should be 60% rather than 50% because it was during a period when nearly 70% of the top 20 players in Korean ladder on ICCUP were terran.
Sorry for my rant above, but just because a map features 50/50 winrates for TvZ, TvP, and ZvP doesn't mean it is balanced unless the current phase of the metagame between all 3 races is tied at the pro level and at the grandmaster level in Europe, North America, and Korea too--which hasn't happened, therefore the premise which your argument stands on is flawed.
The rest of what you're saying only holds true if the foundation from which you speak holds true (which I'm arguing it doesn't).
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
It's been T favored since release and I don't think it's becoming zerg favored right now. Terran just isn't winning 60% of the games anymore.
You're aware that it always takes several months for Zerg to catch up against something new, which is why they had vague troubles before? Even Code S Terrans are struggling to win against lesser Zergs (and by lesser Zergs I mean non-Korean Zergs); and the games against the best ZvTs in the world (DRG, Curious, etc.) are becoming more and more one-sided with the Zerg slaughtering everything as soon as he gets mass mutas. Besides, Terran is running out of options, while Zerg still has room to improve, so this shift will probably worsen in the next few weeks/months.
After watching the TvZs lately I don't actually think widow mines need a nerf at all. Zerg players have actually gotten quite good at dealing with them, aided by the overseer speed buff.
They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
thats why this is called testing .. at least they dont just put them live without consent of people
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
It's been T favored since release and I don't think it's becoming zerg favored right now. Terran just isn't winning 60% of the games anymore.
You're aware that it always takes several months for Zerg to catch up against something new, which is why they had vague troubles before? Even Code S Terrans are struggling to win against lesser Zergs (and by lesser Zergs I mean non-Korean Zergs); and the games against the best ZvTs in the world (DRG, Curious, etc.) are becoming more and more one-sided with the Zerg slaughtering everything as soon as he gets mass mutas. Besides, Terran is running out of options, while Zerg still has room to improve, so this shift will probably worsen in the next few weeks/months.
I definitely agree with this sentiment. Given the fact that for much of beta, terran could choose from multiple viable openings, zerg has always had to play counter-offensively.
Now the tides are swinging toward zerg who will take the same amount of time as terran did when they explore their myriad of opening options to harrass, or late-econ/early-cheese, etc..
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Yeah this is a better Widow Mine nerf. This is what I wrote in the other Balance map thread awhile back:
"They could also add a normal AOE instead of constant 40 damage. By this I mean have a 100%/50%/25% of damage areas. This would mean that in the epicenter it deals 125+35shields to the target it hits, 62.5 damage in a small area around that and lastly a 31 damage in the remainder of the area. This would still kill big clumps of Banes, but would not kill massive amounts of Lings or Probes on one hit."
I think there's still some Probe hate by picking 40 dmg AoE, but yeah.
Well this is very positive change to the nerf, it makes it pretty bad imo, but it doesn't atleast totally gut it. I admittedly think it might come down to the same thing, that T will get steam rolled, but atleast there's still a reason to make WMs(while certainly none yet to make tanks)
On October 15 2013 03:55 SoFrOsTy wrote: I still like the tank buff. Mathematically it is a huge change. Especially against banelings in huge battles.
I agree that it is a huge buff, but it's an irrelevant buff. It's a buff against everything the tank is currently strong against, when it's not used because it's terrible at things it's currently weak against.
As a T, the last thing I want is that kind of buff. Make the tank more solid against mutas, vipers and immortals, it doesn't need to be better against anything else.
On October 15 2013 03:55 SoFrOsTy wrote: I still like the tank buff. Mathematically it is a huge change. Especially against banelings in huge battles.
I agree that it is a huge buff, but it's an irrelevant buff. It's a buff against everything the tank is currently strong against, when it's not used because it's terrible at things it's currently weak against.
As a T, the last thing I want is that kind of buff. Make the tank more solid against mutas, vipers and immortals, it doesn't need to be better against anything else.
Actually attack speed is the natural counter to immortals. Vipers and mutas are whole another deal though.
On October 15 2013 03:55 SoFrOsTy wrote: I still like the tank buff. Mathematically it is a huge change. Especially against banelings in huge battles.
I agree that it is a huge buff, but it's an irrelevant buff. It's a buff against everything the tank is currently strong against, when it's not used because it's terrible at things it's currently weak against.
As a T, the last thing I want is that kind of buff. Make the tank more solid against mutas, vipers and immortals, it doesn't need to be better against anything else.
In fact there was a protoss unit in pre-beta which could clone itself to match any strong enemy unit. It effectively made terrans quit building BCS and Thors and ravens. And it made zerg quit building defilers and ultralisks and broodlords for fear of being cheaply cloned for half the minerals and gas of a normal epic unit.
It has a deleterious effect on "hero units" and thus the cloning unit was diligently removed. Congrats blizzard for getting it right
On October 15 2013 03:55 SoFrOsTy wrote: I still like the tank buff. Mathematically it is a huge change. Especially against banelings in huge battles.
I agree that it is a huge buff, but it's an irrelevant buff. It's a buff against everything the tank is currently strong against, when it's not used because it's terrible at things it's currently weak against.
As a T, the last thing I want is that kind of buff. Make the tank more solid against mutas, vipers and immortals, it doesn't need to be better against anything else.
Actually attack speed is the natural counter to immortals. Vipers and mutas are whole another deal though.
10% attack speed doesn't change a thing though. If you are going to buff it against immortals in a meaningful way it's need to be like 50% attack speed, which I dare say wouldn't work against anything else
Just to add it in there, it takes a tank 45 seconds to kill an immortal(it takes an immortal 6 to kill a tank), cutting it to 40 doesn't change anything really
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Pretty much all of the changes are in the right direction, and the only ones they don't go through with are the ones that the community shits all over.
They aren't willing to make HUGE changes in the middle of HotS; game redesigns are for LotV.
On October 15 2013 03:55 SoFrOsTy wrote: I still like the tank buff. Mathematically it is a huge change. Especially against banelings in huge battles.
I agree that it is a huge buff, but it's an irrelevant buff. It's a buff against everything the tank is currently strong against, when it's not used because it's terrible at things it's currently weak against.
As a T, the last thing I want is that kind of buff. Make the tank more solid against mutas, vipers and immortals, it doesn't need to be better against anything else.
In fact there was a protoss unit in pre-beta which could clone itself to match any strong enemy unit. It effectively made terrans quit building BCS and Thors and ravens. And it made zerg quit building defilers and ultralisks and broodlords for fear of being cheaply cloned for half the minerals and gas of a normal epic unit.
It has a deleterious effect on "hero units" and thus the cloning unit was diligently removed. Congrats blizzard for getting it right
Fun fact: they used the model of the replicant for the mothership core. I guess floating protoss ball-thingies are multi-purpose and can be adapted to any sort of unit concept.
On October 15 2013 02:49 Fission wrote: I was kinda hoping they'd stick with the WM nerf but maybe also change the viper blinding cloud radius
Vipers are already so good VS mech. This would be way over kill for something so small as a the WM. No need to buff radius just allow blinding clouds to actually kill the range of the WM trigger radius (maybe not even fire at all under blinding cloud)
I wish blinding cloud would effect WM, but blinding cloud's radius were reduced by quite a bit.
Also, Terran needs a better way to fight Vipers. Watching Flash vs Curious the other day was downright depressing.
I just wish blinding cloud reduced attack range by a fixed amount rather than to melee range. Having it -5 range would make everything else minus Collossi with thermal lance melee already so I don't get why it needs to be such an overkill for tanks.
I like it, a lot. That'd even make it possible to slightly buff the blinding cloud. atm it is quite underwhelming against most units, and super OP against tanks.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
It's a TEST map.
You want him to try random balance changes here instead of in the live version of the game.
Also, bio-mech versus zerg could be interesting: - set up positions with mines, turrets, siege tanks, thors - use your newfound (positional) map control to do more targeted drops
In what world do you live? What game are you playing? How the fuck can you set up such positions against a super mobile and agressive army like Muta/Ling/bling without losing either the army, before it´s completely set up or an expo or your main to a simple runby/counter. With the muta buff and creep spreading still getting better and better on all levels of play, you can´t start playing chess as terran, when the zerg plays soccer. He will just shoot his football at your chessboard and make you cry!
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
+ 10 dmg to shields.
Good thing against immortals, yeah :3? Still keeps them useless against zerg anyways.
It'd affect Stalkers and Zealots too. It'll affect the Blink Stalkers 4 gate all in. However, it won't have too big of an impact in the mid game as tank use in mid game are still very rare.
On October 15 2013 04:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I like the idea that widow mines do slightly less splash damage than direct damage. I'm all for that tweak I hope it ends up going through!
Hmm, that was always the case (100 direct damage, 40 splash) ? :D With this they do less splash damage the further you get from the impact point, that's it (100 direct damage, 40/20/10 splash).
On October 15 2013 04:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I like the idea that widow mines do slightly less splash damage than direct damage. I'm all for that tweak I hope it ends up going through!
Hmm, that was always the case (100 direct damage, 40 splash) ? :D With this they do less splash damage the further you get from the impact point, that's it (100 direct damage, 40/20/10 splash).
That's what this is saying, yes:
Here's how we're intending the Widow Mine change to work: Units inside a 1.25 radius take 100% damage. (e.g. 40 damage) From 1.25 to 1.5, units take 50%. (e.g. 20 damage) From 1.5 to 1.75, units take 25%. (e.g. 10 damage)
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
It's been T favored since release and I don't think it's becoming zerg favored right now. Terran just isn't winning 60% of the games anymore.
I think we need to calm down and wait for some more TvZs in GSL until we say anything.
I do feel like considering if you just look at IEM, there were no terran's in the top four (I think one in the top eight) that buffing widow mines is simply not a good idea. They make the TvZ matchup fun and aggressive, we don't want it being stagnant and boring.
On October 15 2013 04:45 Merilwen wrote: I do feel like considering if you just look at IEM, there were no terran's in the top four (I think one in the top eight) that buffing widow mines is simply not a good idea. They make the TvZ matchup fun and aggressive, we don't want it being stagnant and boring.
Mines are getting nerfed, not buffed. And IEM is a terrible example to look at because their (terran) lineup was bad. There were significantly more great protoss/zergs than there were terrans.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
Zerg recently winning a couple matches doesn't mean it's becoming zerg favored wtf.
Imo, they need to hold off on Terran nerfs. They made the mistake with WOL where they had a nerfbat-spree and nerfed lots of Terran units after a few events to the detriment of the entire game.
Zergs already have figured out widow mines, and at the current rate the match-up is going, people will soon start complaining about mass mutalisk. Does that mean mass muta will be nerfed soon? (edit: trying to make the point that it should not be). Widow mines are the last untouched Terran HOTS unit - they need to leave it alone imo.
I don't understand why everyone is panicking right now. Blizzard is taking a careful approach on those changes and that's for the best since even slight changes can have dramatic unintended effects on other matchups.
Also, for those saying that the tank buff is useless, I think you might want to withhold judgement until pro players start experimenting with it (if it goes through). I remember blizzard buffing fungal growth by a huge margin and people were still complaining about how useless it was until suddenly everyone realized it was so good as to be gamebreaking.
It's always the same story where everyone is venting and screaming, and then some progamer comes up with an awesome build and the metagame changes completely and we move on the next "broken" unit, completely forgetting about how everything went down the last time. Stop acting like children and be patient!
On October 15 2013 05:01 SHODAN wrote: this might be a significant buff to widow mines. running zerglings in to trigger friendly fire on marines will no longer be worth it.
Well, in this case, halving Storm damage might be a buff since Zealots would take less friendly fire damage from it in PvT. Still, something tells me no Protoss would buy this way to present things.
On October 15 2013 05:01 SHODAN wrote: this might be a significant buff to widow mines. running zerglings in to trigger friendly fire on marines will no longer be worth it.
Well, in this case, halving Storm damage might be a buff since Zealots would take less friendly fire damage from it in PvT. Still, something tells me no Protoss would buy this way to present things.
It Storm would do 60 damage instead of 80, most of bad tosses should consider it a buff to Protoss :D. It is a nerf to good tosses, but a buff to a bad ones.
On October 15 2013 05:00 avilo wrote: Imo, they need to hold off on Terran nerfs. They made the mistake with WOL where they had a nerfbat-spree and nerfed lots of Terran units after a few events to the detriment of the entire game.
Zergs already have figured out widow mines, and at the current rate the match-up is going, people will soon start complaining about mass mutalisk. Does that mean mass muta will be nerfed soon? (edit: trying to make the point that it should not be). Widow mines are the last untouched Terran HOTS unit - they need to leave it alone imo.
Something tells me you have switched to mass mines mech :S
On October 15 2013 05:01 SHODAN wrote: this might be a significant buff to widow mines. running zerglings in to trigger friendly fire on marines will no longer be worth it.
But still, if you have good apm and can stay 1 step ahead of your larva injects, you'll have 1-2 "free" zerglings for this purpose, just saying...
burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
On October 15 2013 05:12 bGr.MetHiX wrote: burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
I think this is more of a Quality of Life change for revelation. The fact you could cloak or burrow then unburrow or uncloak to remove it wasn't necessarily intended. Its not meant to fix the entire oracle, just to make revelation more useful in some situations.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
Zerg recently winning a couple matches doesn't mean it's becoming zerg favored wtf.
Yet Terran winning a few, and not being the most represented in the best 32 players in Korea/Europe/America in any season does show terran is overpowered? Terran has done good in the top 8 players in the world for 1.5 seasons. Thats it. Not even the top 32 players were they well represented. Yet that top 8 performance was enough to nerf terran apparantly.
And now terran also isn't doing good in the top 8 we should just go ahead and nerf them to be sure?
On October 15 2013 05:00 avilo wrote: Imo, they need to hold off on Terran nerfs. They made the mistake with WOL where they had a nerfbat-spree and nerfed lots of Terran units after a few events to the detriment of the entire game.
Zergs already have figured out widow mines, and at the current rate the match-up is going, people will soon start complaining about mass mutalisk. Does that mean mass muta will be nerfed soon? (edit: trying to make the point that it should not be). Widow mines are the last untouched Terran HOTS unit - they need to leave it alone imo.
Something tells me you have switched to mass mines mech :S
God no. Mines are terrible with Mech against Zerg because of swarmhosts. It's quite backwards, at first glance you'd think, "hey mines are a factory unit, so you use those with mech right?" But they are just much, much better with bio than they are with mech. That being said i rarely use mines with Mech vs Zerg.
Bio mine will take a huge hit though, and regardless of it being the more prevalent strategy at the moment in TvZ, blizzard should not eliminate strategic options when there are already so few in the game.
The widow mine change is actually a much better change than a straight up nerf damage or radius. Looks like blizzard are actually listening or are thinking outside the box here a bit!
I think they should wait on widow mine nerfs. I'm not sure if 4M tvz is as OP as we had thought, or just there have been a couple of high level ZvT games where zergs played amazingly well (see DRG vs Innovation).
Nice. Tanks need more buffing TvZ, though. My suggestion: Nerf Blinding Cloud so instead of reducing range to 0, it decreases range by 6. So it would work as it used to versus marines and marauders, but would only reduce siege tank range to 7.
On October 15 2013 05:12 bGr.MetHiX wrote: burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
I think this is more of a Quality of Life change for revelation. The fact you could cloak or burrow then unburrow or uncloak to remove it wasn't necessarily intended. Its not meant to fix the entire oracle, just to make revelation more useful in some situations.
when was the last time you saw burrowing/cloaking being the issue with oracles in a high level game?
Here's a suggestion of mine : since the ebay block and proxy hatch have gotten quite common against protoss, I suggest Blizzard removes the unbuildable mini rocks/plate. It was made to prevent the pylon blocks but it should come back to make protoss on par with the equivalent zerg and terran blocks.
About these test maps, people shouldn't really care because they're just a way to keep players busy while they don't patch the game. They do know some of the problems of Starcraft 2, they showed it when they mentionned the swarm hosts being used as a way to turtle and they've talked about the mutas when they made a unit to counter them (the tempest). They just want to keep the balance more or less as it is now and keep people talking on forums so they can come with answers with Legacy of the Void. The previous interviews, patches and now the oracle bugfix just show they don't really want to change anything major, and pretty much nothing about protoss. Because Lotv.
On October 15 2013 05:12 bGr.MetHiX wrote: burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
I think this is more of a Quality of Life change for revelation. The fact you could cloak or burrow then unburrow or uncloak to remove it wasn't necessarily intended. Its not meant to fix the entire oracle, just to make revelation more useful in some situations.
when was the last time you saw burrowing/cloaking being the issue with oracles in a high level game?
Something tells me you aren't getting the point
It's not supposed to matter at high level play, if anything it should be marked as a bug fix
On October 15 2013 05:26 chuky500 wrote: Here's a suggestion of mine : since the ebay block and proxy hatch have gotten quite common against protoss, I suggest Blizzard removes the unbuildable mini rocks/plate. It was made to prevent the pylon blocks but it should come back to make protoss on par with the equivalent zerg and terran blocks..
On October 15 2013 05:12 bGr.MetHiX wrote: burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
I think this is more of a Quality of Life change for revelation. The fact you could cloak or burrow then unburrow or uncloak to remove it wasn't necessarily intended. Its not meant to fix the entire oracle, just to make revelation more useful in some situations.
when was the last time you saw burrowing/cloaking being the issue with oracles in a high level game?
Something tells me you aren't getting the point
It's not supposed to matter at high level play, if anything it should be marked as a bug fix
something tells me you aren't getting the point.
blizzard intended to buff oracles so they would be more useful mid-late game. well fixing that "bug" of yours wont be noticeable. guess why? because seeing units after they unburrow \ uncloak will reap no benefits at high level play.guess why? because oracles arent seen mid-late-game because they have little to no use. something blizzard intended to fix, but i guess it wont happen.
On October 15 2013 05:26 chuky500 wrote: they've talked about the mutas when they made a unit to counter them (the tempest)
please man if u are going to post about starcraft make sure u've played the game recently or you at least know which units counter which
I really dont think there is ANY reason to nerf terran at the current state of the game. Why Blizzard, why?! TL-whiners seem to have a bigger impact on your decision making progress than current tourney results...
On October 15 2013 05:26 chuky500 wrote: Here's a suggestion of mine : since the ebay block and proxy hatch have gotten quite common against protoss, I suggest Blizzard removes the unbuildable mini rocks/plate. It was made to prevent the pylon blocks but it should come back to make protoss on par with the equivalent zerg and terran blocks.
Why not just give toss an always-on planetary nexus with range (and vision of course) to reach the natural with the main nexus. That also seems reasonable...
On October 15 2013 05:12 bGr.MetHiX wrote: burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
I think this is more of a Quality of Life change for revelation. The fact you could cloak or burrow then unburrow or uncloak to remove it wasn't necessarily intended. Its not meant to fix the entire oracle, just to make revelation more useful in some situations.
when was the last time you saw burrowing/cloaking being the issue with oracles in a high level game?
Something tells me you aren't getting the point
It's not supposed to matter at high level play, if anything it should be marked as a bug fix
something tells me you aren't getting the point.
blizzard intended to buff oracles so they would be more useful mid-late game. well fixing that "bug" of yours wont be noticeable. guess why? because seeing units after they unburrow \ uncloak will reap no benefits at high level play.guess why? because oracles arent seen mid-late-game because they have little to no use. something blizzard intended to fix, but i guess it wont happen.
Bashing Revelation really isn't the best way to vent out your anger towards how underused Oracles are
On October 15 2013 05:12 bGr.MetHiX wrote: burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
I think this is more of a Quality of Life change for revelation. The fact you could cloak or burrow then unburrow or uncloak to remove it wasn't necessarily intended. Its not meant to fix the entire oracle, just to make revelation more useful in some situations.
when was the last time you saw burrowing/cloaking being the issue with oracles in a high level game?
Just the threat of it happening forces players to defend against it. Once that element of the game is removed, players can free up a little apm since they don't have to take it into consideration this reasonably significant detail of the inner game mechanics (especially players like innovation who is 100% mechanics!)
On October 15 2013 05:40 kinsky wrote: I really dont think there is ANY reason to nerf terran at the current state of the game. Why Blizzard, why?! TL-whiners seem to have a bigger impact on your decision making progress than current tourney results...
If TL-whiners had a bigger impact on Blizzard's decision making, they would already renamed this game into YetAnotherBlizzardRTS4 instead of SC2. Blizzard just happens to believe that the area being what it used to be is too punishing, considering that good players usually do not even get the hits that cover the whole area to begin with, so it does not change much IMO.
On October 15 2013 05:12 bGr.MetHiX wrote: burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
I think this is more of a Quality of Life change for revelation. The fact you could cloak or burrow then unburrow or uncloak to remove it wasn't necessarily intended. Its not meant to fix the entire oracle, just to make revelation more useful in some situations.
when was the last time you saw burrowing/cloaking being the issue with oracles in a high level game?
Something tells me you aren't getting the point
It's not supposed to matter at high level play, if anything it should be marked as a bug fix
something tells me you aren't getting the point.
blizzard intended to buff oracles so they would be more useful mid-late game. well fixing that "bug" of yours wont be noticeable. guess why? because seeing units after they unburrow \ uncloak will reap no benefits at high level play.guess why? because oracles arent seen mid-late-game because they have little to no use. something blizzard intended to fix, but i guess it wont happen.
Bashing Revelation really isn't the best way to vent out your anger towards how underused Oracles are
My friend, i feel no anger towards how underused Oracles are mid-late game. And i'm not bashing Revelation . All i am saying is that this change does not affect the game AT ALL . They said they were going to make oracles more viable and this change does not do that at all. Now please try to argue with real arguments because that last post wasn't really what i would call an argument rofl :D
On October 15 2013 05:12 bGr.MetHiX wrote: burrowing/unburrowing/cloaking/uncloaking who cares man.that's never been the issue with oracles. once again blizzard proves to be totally clueless ................................................ -.-
I think this is more of a Quality of Life change for revelation. The fact you could cloak or burrow then unburrow or uncloak to remove it wasn't necessarily intended. Its not meant to fix the entire oracle, just to make revelation more useful in some situations.
when was the last time you saw burrowing/cloaking being the issue with oracles in a high level game?
Something tells me you aren't getting the point
It's not supposed to matter at high level play, if anything it should be marked as a bug fix
something tells me you aren't getting the point.
blizzard intended to buff oracles so they would be more useful mid-late game. well fixing that "bug" of yours wont be noticeable. guess why? because seeing units after they unburrow \ uncloak will reap no benefits at high level play.guess why? because oracles arent seen mid-late-game because they have little to no use. something blizzard intended to fix, but i guess it wont happen.
Bashing Revelation really isn't the best way to vent out your anger towards how underused Oracles are
My friend, i feel no anger towards how underused Oracles are mid-late game. And i'm not bashing Revelation . All i am saying is that this change does not affect the game AT ALL . They said they were going to make oracles more viable and this change does not do that at all. Now please try to argue with real arguments because that last post wasn't really what i would call an argument rofl :D
Point taken. I'm sorry I didn't understand what you meant earlier.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
+ 10 dmg to shields.
What if they reduced the transformation time for siege mode? Wouldn't that help TvZ since it's more of a positional issue(blinding clouds, random flanks)
They could also build it into the widow mine burrow upgrade.
We'd also like to try a lesser version of the Widow Mine nerf. Right now, we feel just straight downgrading to the 1.25 range is too big of a nerf. Therefore, we'd like to try a change where widow mines don't do full damage. Units within the 1.25 radius will take 100% damage like we're testing right now. From 1.25 to 1.75, units will take 50% or 25% of the full damage. This way, the total splash radius is the same as is on live, but the actual damage output is still nerfed."
Wow!! It's first time when Blizzard nerfs their nerf!
On October 15 2013 05:01 SHODAN wrote: this might be a significant buff to widow mines. running zerglings in to trigger friendly fire on marines will no longer be worth it.
Well, in this case, halving Storm damage might be a buff since Zealots would take less friendly fire damage from it in PvT. Still, something tells me no Protoss would buy this way to present things.
wind your neck in, TheDwf. I'm a terran player
friendly fire is the strongest tactic zergs are using in TvZ. we know that if you burrow mines too far from your marines, they can easily be sniped by overseer/muta. burrow too many mines too close to your marines and they will cause devastating levels of friendly damage. Polt uses 2 control groups of marines - the front line that is supposed to damage the 4th hatch and eat the friendly fire from mines - the back line darts in to do burst damage whenever a sacrificial ling/bane squad approaches the mines. taking down the 4th hatch is an extremely slow ordeal for terran. you can try leapfrogging small packs of marine/mine, but zerg buys so much time running in small packs of zerglings with 3-4 banes. and while all of this is happening, where do you think all his gas is going? 20% on banes, all the rest on mutas. zerg eventually decides to crush your 2/2 or 3/3 push and counter-attack with 30+ mutas. game over. It's the most abusive tactic in the game - zerg slows down any bio/mine push using small chokes, high ground, and small packs of ling/bane in order to buy critical time on those 7th & 8th geysers. that's how DRG beat Innovation. Scarlett can defend that 4th base choke on Bel'shir for what seems like forever - 2-3 spines, small packs lings & 4 banes. mutas can snipe the front mines because terran simply can't commit too many marines up front. the threat of friendly splash is too great. so, I think the patch change is good because you will have more marines surviving up front if zerg tries to trigger the mines. the hatch will go down quicker, and the clock is ticking faster for zerg. halving storm damage is in no way comparable...
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
+ 10 dmg to shields.
What if they reduced the transformation time for siege mode? Wouldn't that help TvZ since it's more of a positional issue(blinding clouds, random flanks)
They could also build it into the widow mine burrow upgrade.
I think there is pretty much no terran mech player in favor of that. The entire idea behind siege tanks is the sieging/unsieging mechanic. A long range splash damage unit that doesn't need to do it already exists: The colossus, and it is boring. Okay just decreasing the time isn't the same as making it a colossus, but it is imo still a bad idea. Just letting it do full damage against all units is imo already a good place to start.
On October 15 2013 05:56 Nuclease wrote: Excellent. Really creative change on the mines, and I think that Revelation can definitely use some revitalization.
While I think the mine change is at least better than what they first proposed, this wasnt exactly creative, it is the same as siege tanks and often enough proposed by the community already.
@Shodan, keep your mines permantly unburrowed, no more friendly fire! But you are really serious about it? While mine friendly fire is a problem, if they are doing more friendly fire than enemy fire you are doing something wrong and probably better of not making them. If they dont do more friendly fire than enemy fire, then nerfing their damage really wont help you.
This mine change is exactly (pat's self on back) what I suggested and wanted. I know there were some of us who were vocal about simply reducing the outer radius damage instead of a radius nerf, so I am glad Blizzard listened to us.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
+ 10 dmg to shields.
What if they reduced the transformation time for siege mode? Wouldn't that help TvZ since it's more of a positional issue(blinding clouds, random flanks)
They could also build it into the widow mine burrow upgrade.
That would break TvT completely.. It is really easy, they can tweak mech and specifically Tank in TvP, there are so many options they can at least test. They just don't want to do it.
1) + X dmg to shields on Tank 2) lower Immos shields, increase hp 3) -1 range to Immortal (1/1/1 is stopped easily with MSC) 4) reduce Tempest HP or increase it's supply (4 supply wtf) 5) remove bio flag from Hellbat 6) lower armory cost (so you can fight 2/2 vs 2/2 and not 1/0 vs 2/2) 7) ...
edit: the merged upgrades are really good though.. One of the biggest issues with mech TvP is that you need to go heavy Hellbat/Tank/Ghost to hold ground against Zealot/Immortal/Archon and remaxes. Protoss can easily throw you off with adding just few Tempests or Voidrays and he can adjust his composition better then you, because of warpgates and chronoboost. 3/3 Vikes are going to help big time against those pesky air switches.
Great changes. I especially appreciate the widow mine change, the splash damage gradient thing is something people have been asking for since HotS came out.
I feel like they will end up needing a thor buff or muta nerf if this widow mine change goes through because mass muta might become a problem. That being said it's still something I hope goes through.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
He is experimenting to see how things are going to play out. You cannot blame him for that
I wonder if they realize part of mech's problem is that thors are terrible anti-air. It's very obvious when watching TvT where one side goes mech and the other goes marine/tank. The marine/tank player can drop with impunity while the mech player has to be careful around marines.
Siege tanks are still too vulnerable to air units and to all the insanely fast units that SC2 has.
reduce widow mines hp to 50 or 60; or their range to 4; or get rid of the upgrade. I'd prefer the HP. I think they're probably 90 just so they survive psi storm, but that's way too much HP. It's rare that a mine gets killed before it gets a chance to burrow.
I don't think they need a damage or splash reduction. I like the way TvZ is right now. (I play zerg). It's very fun to watch.
Mines are supposed to be weak when they're detectable, they're really not. It's going to take 9-10 stalker shots. 3 fungal growths. And in the meantime they can unburrow and burrow very quickly with the claws upgrade.
On October 15 2013 06:33 aeligos wrote: Leave the widowmine back to original stats.
Zerg players have adapted. Check the ladders; check the tourney results. Widowmines not the problem.
Widow mine is still a problem, not because it is too strong at the present time, even though keep in mind that it took 9 month and several nerf/buff to adapt to it, it doesn't mean that terran can't improve too, but because it is getting boring to watch every TvZ are the same game. Nerfing widow mine while buffing late game transition, it's not a bad idea, the question is if they are doing it the right way.
On October 15 2013 06:43 DuneBug wrote: reduce widow mines hp to 50 or 60; or their range to 4; or get rid of the upgrade. I'd prefer the HP. I think they're probably 90 just so they survive psi storm, but that's way too much HP. It's rare that a mine gets killed before it gets a chance to burrow.
I don't think they need a damage or splash reduction. I like the way TvZ is right now. (I play zerg). It's very fun to watch.
Mines are supposed to be weak when they're detectable, they're really not. It's going to take 9-10 stalker shots. 3 fungal growths. And in the meantime they can unburrow and burrow very quickly with the claws upgrade.
I too find it amusing that WMs have the same amount of health as Hellions
Also if we look back the brood war mines, there are chances for a mine to be refunctional (burrows back again) after being dodged, and replacement of the mine increase the opportunity for a player to trigger it However if we look at widowmines, after being dodged, the opponent already knows the place of the mine so he could easily either trigger it using a worthless unit or avoid that area Also vulture mines destoys each other so it is hard to get that "stack up effect" of widowmines(a bulk of mines 1 shot the zerg army) The splash damage is just one small part of the mine... That's why sometimes widowmines can be extremely powerfull but sometimes they are completely useless
Edit: please design the AoE damage units carefully David Kim
I like the widow mine change, but tanks firing faster was supposed to be the counterbalance.. so if we improve widow mine some.. and leave the tank upgrade as it is... ??? |:
On October 15 2013 06:53 Lumi wrote: I like the widow mine change, but tanks firing faster was supposed to be the counterbalance.. so if we improve widow mine some.. and leave the tank upgrade as it is... ??? |:
Wow,blizzard actually made 2 decisions that were not completely stupid. What is going on ? The widow mine change is a step in the right way of balancing it,i think it still needs some test by the players in game but the basic idea is quite good.
Also imo the revelation should be permanent whether burrowed of whatever.
where did the idea of merging upgrades for terran go?
TvZ: viking air attack could do +4 against psionic, so they can snipe vipers faster, or instead the range from which blind cloud can be casted could be reduced to 8 to make it more vulnerable. and thors could receive some kind a small buff against air. but nerfing WM *a little* is a good thing, I am confident they will nerf the nerf even more than the current proposal.
TvT: don't go for a general tank buff.
TvP: give thors' ground attack against shield a buff.
On October 15 2013 06:35 andrewlt wrote: I wonder if they realize part of mech's problem is that thors are terrible anti-air. It's very obvious when watching TvT where one side goes mech and the other goes marine/tank. The marine/tank player can drop with impunity while the mech player has to be careful around marines.
Siege tanks are still too vulnerable to air units and to all the insanely fast units that SC2 has.
Agreed, also buffing Thor's anti-air is one of the few changes that wouldn't break any matchup.
Regarding the Oracle, I would like to see Revelation and Envision merged.
Why the widow mine nerf? Blizzard is going too far. Players like flash and innovation are losing to players like curious and soo. If anything, the widow mine needs an upgrade to make it run faster or have higher range or no team splash or something. The only reason terran was winning at all was the meta game. TThe zergs started to figure it out and now it's back to zerg dominance like in WoL. This widow mine nerf isn't what we need in hots right now, well I guess we can call it WoL 2.0 since soo will probably 4-0 dear in gsl and jaedong will win wcs na
Ok, I might just be crazy, but I'd love to see a ghost buff. Specifically, more damage on snipe (again). It would let bio terrans have another option against ultras and meching terrans options against vipers; and for both to use against infestors and broods, while not being useless against mutas. Something like 35 +20 psionic or 40 + 15 psionic (currently 25 + 25 psionic) would even keep the exact same number of snipes to pick off a HT, and the damage vs non-psionic is still less than the old ghosts vs everything days of TvZ when it was 45 flat. I just think it would be fun, and add another flexible option for terrans outside TvP.
Either that, or buff tank hp. They would still be vulnerable to mutas and bio terrans' drops, but it gives the meching terran a little more breathing room to save/repair them. Also might promote tank usage against toss all-ins.
I just love to see terran saying was game was just balanced when terran was winning everything over the last nine month, and since the overseer buff and some news maps Innovation lost 3 macro games and every one is losing its mind and asking for buff. :D
Mine is taking over the AoE. so Siege could try doing a lot more single target damage. and start sniping Colossi, Ultras and Archons more effectively. Mech can't even handle Colossi + Gateway so it'd be useful with good focus fire to kill and zone out Colossi since 13 > 9. It'll also reinforce the basic unit design that you can waste a lot of damage potential if unmicro'd, which was mitigated by smart fire. Siege in TvT will still be viable, ZvT is mostly a Muta/Viper issue, and PvT this is a real buff that significantly helps against Protoss ground.
sry but: Let's do a bugfix and call it a balance patch Oracle:
Instead of doing the Revelation range buff, we'd like to try a change where units that are hit by Revelation can't remove it by simply burrowing or cloaking. Burrowing or cloaking will still hide the unit, but unburrowing/uncloaking will reveal it again.
On October 15 2013 07:24 Vanadiel wrote: I just love to see terran saying was game was just balanced when terran was winning everything over the last nine month, and since the overseer buff and some news maps Innovation lost 3 macro games and every one is losing its mind and asking for buff. :D
Terrans have won many tournaments (though Mvp and MMA vs mostly EU players doesn't say much about game balance) but if you look at distribution in Finals it is very close to ideal and if you look at Top 4 and Top 8 Terran is under-represented.
If you then look at tournaments overall and every division of ladder except Bronze, Terran is *very* under-represented and outside of Korea *very very* under-represented.
Also it would be nice to see Terrans win events with non-marine based strats.
I'd still love the see the envision and the relevation abilities merge into one ability, while giving the oracle a new ability that allows them to disarm static defenses, like they were supposed to have early in the beta. It fixes the fact that the oracle is pretty much only useful untill there is any form of static defenses. It'd give them some sort of midgame usage aswell, while also encouraging making more than just one of them (since that won't really work out with the mana and stuff).
I like this widow mine adjustment. I think this is exactly what was needed as it still does damage to the full 1.75 radius, but banelings will only die inside the 1.25 and take damage outside. I think this could be a good change and am interested to see how it turns out.
On October 15 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote: Why do people keep asking for +damage to shields...
If shields were really the "make or break" aspect of Mech PvT then cutting 1-2 tanks for 1-2 ghosts would solve ALL shield problems...
Ghost EMPs immortals, immortals back up and tanks sit sieged outside of range. See a problem there? You can't chase EMP'd units with siege tanks like you can with bio.
On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote: That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for.
but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement.
Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed.
The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact.
Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio.
On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote: That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for.
but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement.
Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed.
The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact.
Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio.
To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost.
In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply
Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2)
Cut David Kim some slack. Balancing an RTS game is EXTREMELY difficult. One change can affect a multitude of units, entire unit compositions, matchups, everything.
They can't just make changes and say "lets hope this works" that will anger everyone even more. People get pissed when they don't make changes, but they also get pissed when they do make changes.
It's like walking on thin ice. I would love to see you guys analyze StarCraft 2 and make balance changes that actually work in the game.
Balancing an RTS is on the same level of difficulty as balancing an MMO's PvP.
On October 15 2013 07:24 Vanadiel wrote: I just love to see terran saying was game was just balanced when terran was winning everything over the last nine month, and since the overseer buff and some news maps Innovation lost 3 macro games and every one is losing its mind and asking for buff. :D
Well, see stats, it's not only Innovation. Zerg has successfully adapted (they just need fuckload amount of time) to the hots metagame and micro, and now they clearly begin to dominate std macroplay in this MU.
But yeah an incredible Innovation violently dominate sc2, TvZ and hellbatwars for a few months, where we had 0 top-form ZvT (Life in top form showed ZvT was fine early hots, then he slumps a bit), so gonna nerf WM with 0 compensating buff while Z are over 50% at ZvT ? Sounds pretty stupid.
On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote: That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for.
but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement.
Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed.
The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact.
Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio.
To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost.
In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply
Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2)
I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point?
Isn't that WM nerf into slight buff, really a nerf into nerf?
With a 1.25 radius/100% damage, your first unit runs into the radius and at the time the mine shoots your other units are probably already closer to the mine than the first unit, the center of the clump is the best target already. You thus take more damage overall.
With a 1.75/100-1.50/75-1.25/50 isn't the scenario: first unit enters the 1.75 radius, mine starts loading, and at the time it fires it either goes off on the first unit or on a bigger clump that's still in the 50%/75% damage zone.
I hope it's clear and someone can confirm how it would work. I don't often play terran.
[edit] oh and i think the oracle change is a waste of everybody's time. All those people that spent time thinking about it, developing it, discussing it (fuck me, i am too...). All of that for such a small thing.
On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote: That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for.
but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement.
Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed.
The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact.
Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio.
To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost.
In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply
Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2)
I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point?
They're the same unit except one is fundamentally worse than the other. The removal of overkill doesn't make up for the massive nerfs it recieved at the beginning of the game partly helped along by steppes of war.
On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote: That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for.
but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement.
Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed.
The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact.
Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio.
To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost.
In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply
Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2)
I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point?
I'm not trying to argue for buffing tanks, I'm just establishing the math people don't talk about very much when discussing supply cost differences.
On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote: That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for.
but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement.
Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed.
The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact.
Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio.
To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost.
In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply
Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2)
I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point?
They're the same unit except one is fundamentally worse than the other. The removal of overkill doesn't make up for the massive nerfs it recieved at the beginning of the game partly helped along by steppes of war.
They are absolutely not the same unit because the two games are played very differently. I've never understood doing these kinds of straight comparisons to Brood War, it literally does not mean anything in regards to SC2.
On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote: That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for.
but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement.
Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed.
The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact.
Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio.
To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost.
In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply
Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2)
I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point?
I'm not trying to argue for buffing tanks, I'm just establishing the math people don't talk about very much when discussing supply cost differences.
Not taking into account things like unit pathing/clumping, no overkill in SC2, etc, etc. Stuff like that is why these straight comparisons never actually matter.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Pretty much all of the changes are in the right direction, and the only ones they don't go through with are the ones that the community shits all over.
They aren't willing to make HUGE changes in the middle of HotS; game redesigns are for LotV.
You mean game redesigns are for SC3, which may or may not ever happen. HotS was an opportunity to fix the poorly designed race that is Protoss. LotV is another opportunity, but if they didn't do anything in HotS, they won't do anything in LotV.
I feel like the Revelation buff is more of a bug fix. Honestly, it seems pretty dumb if you can get rid of it simply by cloaking or burrowing.
On October 15 2013 06:10 Crisium wrote: This mine change is exactly (pat's self on back) what I suggested and wanted. I know there were some of us who were vocal about simply reducing the outer radius damage instead of a radius nerf, so I am glad Blizzard listened to us.
If only they would have listened to qxc when doing the ghost nerf wrong.
People often say to give +10 damage to shields by tanks, but that seems kinda gimmicky and if it worked against immortals, it would completely defeat the purpose of hardened shields. I mean, they'd still be fine against Roaches, which is probably the most important to not screw over PvZ, but I'd rather just see tanks to more damage to armored, say 60 instead of 50. With +5 damage per upgrade, they'd do 75 with +3, and 71 to units with 4 armor, which is armored units with +3 armor (marauders, stalkers, thors, tanks all have 1 base armor, and immortals iirc).
That would mean tanks 2 shot marauders and 3 shot shieldless immortals. Artosis would probably rejoice, and unsieged tanks would still get eaten by enough marauders.
Widow Mine just need a rework imo Overlapping shots or not really make or break a game and this is a problem with it. It is ok if it wasn't a key unit of a push, but to have a unit that is meant to act as terrain control be so unreliable and little room to micro them, it just sucks as a unit (not in terms of balance but in terms of a unit design) Reminds me of ff except now they are automatically used and you spamming them
Terrans will really struggle mightily after this change goes through, and it sucks for them as its their profession, but as a viewer I don't really care. Bio/mine rallies are very boring to watch and this matchup, which was so good a couple of years ago, is far from being the best matchup in sc2 atm, it's terrible. Mass mutas flying around shitting over everything, or a bio/mine rally that may win a game, but increasingly not. It's bad. It was bad when terrans were dominating a couple of months ago, and it's bad now. Very one dimensional. For the sake of this game as a spectator sport I don't mind seeing the change go through, hopefully terrans will experiment with new styles and strategies, maybe see more mech or various aggressive strategies instead of 3cc every game. In the short term it may suck, but in the long term, the game will be better for it.
These changes seem pretty good. Reducing the WM's range to 1.25 would've been pretty game-changing, seeing how many HotS games we've seen over the summer, so this change would effect the game less.
I really wish they'd focus on the a) boring and b) unused units. I think the burrow movement speed buff for roaches was a cool idea... Now do something for Thors, BCs and Carriers (let's start with a speed buffs like every other unit...)
On October 15 2013 02:49 Fission wrote: I was kinda hoping they'd stick with the WM nerf but maybe also change the viper blinding cloud radius
Vipers are already so good VS mech. This would be way over kill for something so small as a the WM. No need to buff radius just allow blinding clouds to actually kill the range of the WM trigger radius (maybe not even fire at all under blinding cloud)
I wish blinding cloud would effect WM, but blinding cloud's radius were reduced by quite a bit.
Also, Terran needs a better way to fight Vipers. Watching Flash vs Curious the other day was downright depressing.
I just wish blinding cloud reduced attack range by a fixed amount rather than to melee range. Having it -5 range would make everything else minus Collossi with thermal lance melee already so I don't get why it needs to be such an overkill for tanks.
wow, this is a very smart idea. with this and bonus dmg to shields we could see tanks in every match up. to bad blizz wont listen to you XD
On October 15 2013 14:05 DusTerr wrote: I really wish they'd focus on the a) boring and b) unused units. I think the burrow movement speed buff for roaches was a cool idea... Now do something for Thors, BCs and Carriers (let's start with a speed buffs like every other unit...)
I second that, but I think Thors are okay. BCs might see more use with the "mech buffs" coming in. Carriers need some help. Most of all though... the Mothership! It's the "ultimate" Protoss unit, the only "hero" unit in the game (aside from MSC), but it's totally USELESS! Except for the week or two when people tried using it against swarm host turtling, there is literally no reason to ever make it. The MSC is just much better. I realize you can't introduce new, unique abilities into the game at a whim, so here's a simple idea:
Make Mothership have the EXACT same abilities as MSC, remove the cloaking it currently has (no one uses it anyway), PLUS buff its HP/movement/attack to make it a strong battle unit. Nothing insane, maybe roughly twice as strong as a BC? I really don't think it would unbalance the game because in lategame TvP the T will have a horde of vikings anyway and in ZvP it would finally create a use for Neural Parasite again.
On October 15 2013 06:57 shid0x wrote: Wow,blizzard actually made 2 decisions that were not completely stupid. What is going on ? The widow mine change is a step in the right way of balancing it,i think it still needs some test by the players in game but the basic idea is quite good.
Also imo the revelation should be permanent whether burrowed of whatever.
Feels like they should just combined Revelation and Envision and make it a single spell, though it will risk completely destroying Swamhost siege, WM, Banshee, Roaches and a huge buff against clocked ghost. They would need to change all the stats like cast range and effective radius to balance it out. If they are looking to make the oracle a high priority target and important for the mid game, this seems like the way to go.
On October 15 2013 06:57 shid0x wrote: Wow,blizzard actually made 2 decisions that were not completely stupid. What is going on ? The widow mine change is a step in the right way of balancing it,i think it still needs some test by the players in game but the basic idea is quite good.
Also imo the revelation should be permanent whether burrowed of whatever.
Feels like they should just combined Revelation and Envision and make it a single spell, though it will risk completely destroying Swamhost siege, WM, Banshee, Roaches and a huge buff against clocked ghost. They would need to change all the stats like cast range and effective radius to balance it out. If they are looking to make the oracle a high priority target and important for the mid game, this seems like the way to go.
Well it depends on how you would do it. I actually think it is an idea to change it so revelation also shows all cloaked units similar to normal units, and keeps them visible for the duration of the spell. That would be a unique form of detection, a bit like scan, but still different.
At the same time then it is a one time thing: they stay visible, but new units entering the area are not affected and stay cloaked.
I tried to mech TvP with the buff tank, it steel feels very weak. As tanks doesnt survive enough time to shoot 2 times, the attack speed buff didnt change anything...
Flash suggested a 2 supply/100 gas tank. I wonder why DK refuse to take this into consideration...
On October 15 2013 13:28 wishr wrote: Great changes. GJ, David! Now please, apply something to Nydus and BC's but do not buff carriers
not sure if sarcasm, carriers maybe the most underused unit in the game (which it shouldn't be since its a core of protoss since sc1) but zergs always find a way to qq.
I just feel sorry for the all Terrans progamers for all the mess David Kim did to their race. Random nerfs and useless buffs since the start of Hots. The meta game completely changing from 1 month to another month..Every time Terran wins a tournament the race gets another random nerf..This is one way to ruin a game. It's funny that people still believe in David Kim after he messed up SC2 that bad at the end of WOL.
Basically nothing about mutalisk. I think D Kim denial on this one is huge. Mutalisk is already the most OP unit of the TvZ matchup and the most powerfull tool to do deadly transition in TvP . With the overseer speed, terrans have actually no real counter to mutalisk big ball bouncing between bases. They should do the same thing as they did for ZvZ, buff static defense of all races against mutalisk. to counter a ball of 30 mutalisk, even a stack of 3 turrets do nothing. The + bio buff dmg should be applied to any static defense. at least with this we would have to avoid static D or be cautious and actually micro mutalisks.
I just break into master again switching to zerg and only doing mutalisk oriented play in TvZ, TvP. Mutalisk management was really skill demanding in wol, now there is no feeling of "danger" doing this kind of harass.
On October 15 2013 17:09 klup wrote: Basically nothing about mutalisk. I think D Kim denial on this one is huge. Mutalisk is already the most OP unit of the TvZ matchup and the most powerfull tool to do deadly transition in TvP . With the overseer speed, terrans have actually no real counter to mutalisk big ball bouncing between bases. They should do the same thing as they did for ZvZ, buff static defense of all races against mutalisk. to counter a ball of 30 mutalisk, even a stack of 3 turrets do nothing. The + bio buff dmg should be applied to any static defense. at least with this we would have to avoid static D or be cautious and actually micro mutalisks.
I just break into master again switching to zerg and only doing mutalisk oriented play in TvZ, TvP. Mutalisk management was really skill demanding in wol, now there is no feeling of "danger" doing this kind of harass.
Well, i never see any terran researching range + armor for turrets.
Mutalisks dont do damages to 6 armor turrets... And when they fly away, with the range, they die really more often.
If we remove the mutalisk from the zerg arsenal well... Zerg doesnt have anything scary (and fun to watch) left.
But maybe nerfing their total health could be cool. Zerg would have to take care of their muta a lot more.
On October 15 2013 17:09 klup wrote: Basically nothing about mutalisk. I think D Kim denial on this one is huge. Mutalisk is already the most OP unit of the TvZ matchup and the most powerfull tool to do deadly transition in TvP . With the overseer speed, terrans have actually no real counter to mutalisk big ball bouncing between bases. They should do the same thing as they did for ZvZ, buff static defense of all races against mutalisk. to counter a ball of 30 mutalisk, even a stack of 3 turrets do nothing. The + bio buff dmg should be applied to any static defense. at least with this we would have to avoid static D or be cautious and actually micro mutalisks.
I just break into master again switching to zerg and only doing mutalisk oriented play in TvZ, TvP. Mutalisk management was really skill demanding in wol, now there is no feeling of "danger" doing this kind of harass.
Well, i never see any terran researching range + armor for turrets.
Mutalisks dont do damages to 6 armor turrets... And when they fly away, with the range, they die really more often.
If we remove the mutalisk from the zerg arsenal well... Zerg doesnt have anything scary (and fun to watch) left.
I research it quite often. Problem is when you need to research it you pretty much already lost: the real counter to mutas is always attacking and making sure he is forced to pretty much suicide his mutas on your army. If you are at the point where he is harassing you and you are making mass turrets to counter it you are on the backfoot and he can freely expand while you sink all your minerals in what is eventually useless static defense.
With 6 armor turrets I assume you mean 6 turrets with armor upgrade? You'd be surprised what 30 mutas do, but yeah they wouldnt attack that. At the same time 6 turrets closely grouped might be enough to defend a single expo. Not even your main. That is a hell of an investment just to scare units away. And quite frankly six spread around an expo might still be sniped one at a time by such a muta ball.
It would be nice if there was the turret upgrade from the WoL campaign, which gave turret an extra AOE damage. It wasn't too big, but it would be good against mutas.
i m fine with the fewer nerf of the WM, looking forward to test it. --> but i really don't get the real intention behind this change ... since TvZ winrates really change in favour of Zerg these days ... despite of the current WM
what about the tank buff, did not think that it will change anything in TvP & TVZ, only destroy TvT Bioplay ... if the mutalisk would be nerfed the tank maybe will be decent in TvZ as well, so they can at least compensate the WM nerf, which is the main target of blizz i guess!
On October 15 2013 17:09 klup wrote: Basically nothing about mutalisk. I think D Kim denial on this one is huge. Mutalisk is already the most OP unit of the TvZ matchup and the most powerfull tool to do deadly transition in TvP . With the overseer speed, terrans have actually no real counter to mutalisk big ball bouncing between bases. They should do the same thing as they did for ZvZ, buff static defense of all races against mutalisk. to counter a ball of 30 mutalisk, even a stack of 3 turrets do nothing. The + bio buff dmg should be applied to any static defense. at least with this we would have to avoid static D or be cautious and actually micro mutalisks.
I just break into master again switching to zerg and only doing mutalisk oriented play in TvZ, TvP. Mutalisk management was really skill demanding in wol, now there is no feeling of "danger" doing this kind of harass.
Well, i never see any terran researching range + armor for turrets.
Mutalisks dont do damages to 6 armor turrets... And when they fly away, with the range, they die really more often.
If we remove the mutalisk from the zerg arsenal well... Zerg doesnt have anything scary (and fun to watch) left.
But maybe nerfing their total health could be cool. Zerg would have to take care of their muta a lot more.
Range and armor are upgraded in pro games. But they are not very effective. 2 armor means that instead of being unable to 1 shot a turret with 29 mutas, you can snipe it with 36 mutas. On 4 bases, that's less than a minute of respite if the zerg definitely wants to 1 shot. If the turrets are close together, that number of mutas needed to 1 shot goes down for consequent turrets due to glaive worms.
Well, i never see any terran researching range + armor for turrets.
Mutalisks dont do damages to 6 armor turrets... And when they fly away, with the range, they die really more often.
If we remove the mutalisk from the zerg arsenal well... Zerg doesnt have anything scary (and fun to watch) left.
But maybe nerfing their total health could be cool. Zerg would have to take care of their muta a lot more.
Well I actually do that but only using mech and it has done close to nothing. you need a pack of at least 3 armored turret to actually do dmg. But it's actually really easy to tell you why terrans dont research theses:
1) it is researched on Ebays and your ebays are used to research bio upgrades.
2) it cost a lot of gas 100/100 for the range upgrade 150/150 for the building upgrade, it is huge for upgrading static D. The only reason I do these is for PF to defend key point when I play mech.
3) the turret itself is expensive as for countering mutas properly to go in one place you need a stack of 3 turrets : 300 minerals X the number of point you want to defend. It's not viable.
I don't want muta going out of the zerg arsenal. I just want terran to have actual tools to deal with it and please don't mention the thor because it's like the most slow unit of the entire game and it is not that strong vs mutas when they magic box...
An upgrade for splash dmg for turrets could be a good option too as the previous poster mentionned it. a simple revert on regen of mutas could do good too but I don't like it so much because one good hit of WM could make your muta ball very vulnerable , too much I think.
The idea is that you can actually move out after loosing map control vs zerg. Because if you look carefully at recent ZvT every time a terran loose the map control and stop attacking for a couple of minute. Muta harass--> terran dead. Terran should be able to leave their base and let a small troop to defend and support turrets. And turrets should scare at some point the harass of mutas. It's the only flying unit atm that just /ignore any anti air static defense and that is not normal. the problem was fixed in ZvZ with the spore buff and it was great, I often play muta in ZvZ and don't feel spore buff is abused. It is actually normal that a static D is scary at some point.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
On October 15 2013 06:57 shid0x wrote: Wow,blizzard actually made 2 decisions that were not completely stupid. What is going on ? The widow mine change is a step in the right way of balancing it,i think it still needs some test by the players in game but the basic idea is quite good.
Also imo the revelation should be permanent whether burrowed of whatever.
Feels like they should just combined Revelation and Envision and make it a single spell, though it will risk completely destroying Swamhost siege, WM, Banshee, Roaches and a huge buff against clocked ghost. They would need to change all the stats like cast range and effective radius to balance it out. If they are looking to make the oracle a high priority target and important for the mid game, this seems like the way to go.
Well it depends on how you would do it. I actually think it is an idea to change it so revelation also shows all cloaked units similar to normal units, and keeps them visible for the duration of the spell. That would be a unique form of detection, a bit like scan, but still different.
At the same time then it is a one time thing: they stay visible, but new units entering the area are not affected and stay cloaked.
i think this will happen if that would happen
nobody will make observers anymore in pvt ..
terran will have a harder time since in lategame tvp the only time i see terran is equalized with protoss is the moment toss loses his observers and ghost go clocking start bashing units .. .
the way i see it .. ghost clocking might be rendered useless
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
I've thought the best way to deal with muta harass was to put 1-2 mines in between the turrets on each location, but then zergs learned how to come in and snipe mines before they are set off, so the whole thing falls flat.
And, to be frank, even leaving some units behind to help the static D would be problematic against mass mutas because the composition is so mobile they would just be able to figure out what you are doing and then run the mutas away and use them to crush your main army.
If they do decide to nerf the WM in any way, shape or form, a number of things need to happen, not all at once, but something does need to happen: -Mutalisk speed gets reduced, probably not going to happen as people would flip their lid at the thought of medivacs flying around their bases -Mutalisk regen is reduced by half
Or -Auto-turrets receive an upgrade that either makes them aoe like in the campaign, or increases their strength the more turrets are near each other
Personally if we where to buff turrets I'd prefer it be done by having them increase in strength the more of them are near each other, because it feels silly and stupid for a huge flock of 20-30 mutas to be shut down by just 1-2 turrets, the terran should have to invest something as well.
But the situation we have now also feels wrong where, even if you have a huge upgraded turret ring, it still won't stop mutas once they reach a critical mass.
At this point though I'm not convinced mines need a nerf at all, zergs finally seem to have figured out how to play vs them. I can understand Blizzard wanting bring tanks back into the fray for diversity reasons but, they need to realize that, with how the races are operating right now, nerfing the WM requires a long list of changes to other areas just to compensate.
Well, i never see any terran researching range + armor for turrets.
Mutalisks dont do damages to 6 armor turrets... And when they fly away, with the range, they die really more often.
If we remove the mutalisk from the zerg arsenal well... Zerg doesnt have anything scary (and fun to watch) left.
But maybe nerfing their total health could be cool. Zerg would have to take care of their muta a lot more.
Well I actually do that but only using mech and it has done close to nothing. you need a pack of at least 3 armored turret to actually do dmg. But it's actually really easy to tell you why terrans dont research theses:
1) it is researched on Ebays and your ebays are used to research bio upgrades.
2) it cost a lot of gas 100/100 for the range upgrade 150/150 for the building upgrade, it is huge for upgrading static D. The only reason I do these is for PF to defend key point when I play mech.
3) the turret itself is expensive as for countering mutas properly to go in one place you need a stack of 3 turrets : 300 minerals X the number of point you want to defend. It's not viable.
I don't want muta going out of the zerg arsenal. I just want terran to have actual tools to deal with it and please don't mention the thor because it's like the most slow unit of the entire game and it is not that strong vs mutas when they magic box...
An upgrade for splash dmg for turrets could be a good option too as the previous poster mentionned it. a simple revert on regen of mutas could do good too but I don't like it so much because one good hit of WM could make your muta ball very vulnerable , too much I think.
The idea is that you can actually move out after loosing map control vs zerg. Because if you look carefully at recent ZvT every time a terran loose the map control and stop attacking for a couple of minute. Muta harass--> terran dead. Terran should be able to leave their base and let a small troop to defend and support turrets. And turrets should scare at some point the harass of mutas. It's the only flying unit atm that just /ignore any anti air static defense and that is not normal. the problem was fixed in ZvZ with the spore buff and it was great, I often play muta in ZvZ and don't feel spore buff is abused. It is actually normal that a static D is scary at some point.
AOE damages on turret would just force muta to magic box.But this wont change their power.
Nerf their HP so that they are weaker in direct fights, but stronger if you harass, fly away, harass, fly away... And nerf spore +bio damages because they already 4 shots muta :p
On October 15 2013 06:57 shid0x wrote: Wow,blizzard actually made 2 decisions that were not completely stupid. What is going on ? The widow mine change is a step in the right way of balancing it,i think it still needs some test by the players in game but the basic idea is quite good.
Also imo the revelation should be permanent whether burrowed of whatever.
Feels like they should just combined Revelation and Envision and make it a single spell, though it will risk completely destroying Swamhost siege, WM, Banshee, Roaches and a huge buff against clocked ghost. They would need to change all the stats like cast range and effective radius to balance it out. If they are looking to make the oracle a high priority target and important for the mid game, this seems like the way to go.
Well it depends on how you would do it. I actually think it is an idea to change it so revelation also shows all cloaked units similar to normal units, and keeps them visible for the duration of the spell. That would be a unique form of detection, a bit like scan, but still different.
At the same time then it is a one time thing: they stay visible, but new units entering the area are not affected and stay cloaked.
Something like a AoE BW parasite with a duration. Which is kinda cool and useful.
On October 15 2013 06:57 shid0x wrote: Wow,blizzard actually made 2 decisions that were not completely stupid. What is going on ? The widow mine change is a step in the right way of balancing it,i think it still needs some test by the players in game but the basic idea is quite good.
Also imo the revelation should be permanent whether burrowed of whatever.
Feels like they should just combined Revelation and Envision and make it a single spell, though it will risk completely destroying Swamhost siege, WM, Banshee, Roaches and a huge buff against clocked ghost. They would need to change all the stats like cast range and effective radius to balance it out. If they are looking to make the oracle a high priority target and important for the mid game, this seems like the way to go.
Well it depends on how you would do it. I actually think it is an idea to change it so revelation also shows all cloaked units similar to normal units, and keeps them visible for the duration of the spell. That would be a unique form of detection, a bit like scan, but still different.
At the same time then it is a one time thing: they stay visible, but new units entering the area are not affected and stay cloaked.
i think this will happen if that would happen
nobody will make observers anymore in pvt ..
terran will have a harder time since in lategame tvp the only time i see terran is equalized with protoss is the moment toss loses his observers and ghost go clocking start bashing units .. .
the way i see it .. ghost clocking might be rendered useless
This definitely could happen in the current TvP late game. But no observers at all sounds extreme. Oracles are not cheap or a natural tech path, and if it get sniped by Vikings or eats EMP Protoss won't have a quick way to get detection. It's not going to be easy to even cast the spell with 2 natural counters on the field. At least it won't be an auto-loss when no Observers are left and Protoss still have an Oracle for the remaining Ghosts. Even then I don't see pro Terrans clumping their Ghosts to eat spells likes this, or stroms at that stage. Might be an interesting dynamic. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
Wait... The way you are talking to this guy and comparing to Strelok thought is ... is this the REAL Goody ?
The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
Wait... The way you are talking to this guy and comparing to Strelok thought is ... is this the REAL Goody ?
If I remember correctly it's the goody account... If I remember correctly.
On October 15 2013 06:57 shid0x wrote: Wow,blizzard actually made 2 decisions that were not completely stupid. What is going on ? The widow mine change is a step in the right way of balancing it,i think it still needs some test by the players in game but the basic idea is quite good.
Also imo the revelation should be permanent whether burrowed of whatever.
Feels like they should just combined Revelation and Envision and make it a single spell, though it will risk completely destroying Swamhost siege, WM, Banshee, Roaches and a huge buff against clocked ghost. They would need to change all the stats like cast range and effective radius to balance it out. If they are looking to make the oracle a high priority target and important for the mid game, this seems like the way to go.
Well it depends on how you would do it. I actually think it is an idea to change it so revelation also shows all cloaked units similar to normal units, and keeps them visible for the duration of the spell. That would be a unique form of detection, a bit like scan, but still different.
At the same time then it is a one time thing: they stay visible, but new units entering the area are not affected and stay cloaked.
i think this will happen if that would happen
nobody will make observers anymore in pvt ..
terran will have a harder time since in lategame tvp the only time i see terran is equalized with protoss is the moment toss loses his observers and ghost go clocking start bashing units .. .
the way i see it .. ghost clocking might be rendered useless
How so? If he has no observers, send in one ghost, emp/snipe his army. He has to spend 75 energy (probably) to decloak it. Immediatly after he did this you can send a second ghost, since it doesn't give permanent detection in an area. Not to mention an observer means that if you are making a new base and the ghost arrives, he gets detected and colossi immediatly kill it. If you have to manually activate a one-time decloak you are going to lose alot of units to snipes.
Of course it also gives advantages, but that is the point behind it.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
Wait... The way you are talking to this guy and comparing to Strelok thought is ... is this the REAL Goody ?
If I remember correctly it's the goody account... If I remember correctly.
Will go back a bit (if some of you guys find it interesting):
For mech to be viable in TvP are required the following:
1 - change Widow-Mine upgrade, allow upgraded mines to have a capacity of 2 charges after the upgrade (assuming that the splash-radius nerf gets accepted) 2 - change Thor cost - reduce it's cost down to 250/175 instead of 300/200
3 - the optional change is - reduce Siege-Tank recharge time by 20% (the test map chage is a reduction on 10%, but I suggest even further - 20% for a real change)
Pretty sure that the Mech units (Tank, Thor, Hellbat) aren't THAT bad, but instead it's the fact that the Widow-mine is anti- Zerg designed unit as it currently is.. If it had like 2 charges would be viable vs Protoss as well because Protoss won't be able to "shut down" them by just saccing an innitial group of Zealots in it.. And overall - the higher single-target DPS a unit is it's designed to be vs Protoss unit, and the higher the splash-damage unit is - it's designed to be vs Zerg and/or Bio unit.. With other words - splash is nearly Irrelevant in TvP, but instead - the rate-of-fire is..
You could swap the 2: i.e. - 2 be optional, and 3 be the second change, but I think that with the newest Ultralisk buff, a Thor cost reduction overall is a required thing..
(I am silver b.t.w., couldn't quite get up to gold, but thing is - those are changes based on observation rather that on personal experiences)
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
Wait... The way you are talking to this guy and comparing to Strelok thought is ... is this the REAL Goody ?
If I remember correctly it's the goody account... If I remember correctly.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
+1
Pretty sure that that's map-related.. The smarter play from Zergs overall is to sac Banes into the frontal mines, and keep Terran mine-count or the front row low at least, instead of chasing the marines.. But still - think it's map-related
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
What happend to trying new things with the Nydus. Talked about it when HotS just got into beta and then nothing. I was hoping to see stuff like small limited distance creep highways, time limited 1hp ramps for bane/ling to make flanking more viable, no gas cost if placed on hatchery creep. and no I think those things would necessarily be balanced in the live version rigth now.
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
terran will have a harder time since in lategame tvp the only time i see terran is equalized with protoss is the moment toss loses his observers and ghost go clocking start bashing units .. .
the way i see it .. ghost clocking might be rendered useless
Well, the way I think about it (I'm advocating this change since HOTS release) Revelation+Envision means that if the Terran player has its ghosts spread out it is very unlikely to catch them all - and that's an interesting dynamic because it takes skill by both sides. Oracles cost 150gas, you can't just spam revelation/envision against a poke with a single ghost. Besides, oracles are soft-countered by ghosts - in an interesting way, since oracles are faster. I see a lot of potential.
Oh, and it is certainly better than the current design of Envision, which is the same as the observer's.
On October 15 2013 20:15 Garmer wrote: can someone remind me the reloading time? i missed other change it isn't 40 sec right? or those things would be pretty useless
On October 15 2013 12:54 AxionSteel wrote: Terrans will really struggle mightily after this change goes through, and it sucks for them as its their profession, but as a viewer I don't really care. Bio/mine rallies are very boring to watch and this matchup, which was so good a couple of years ago, is far from being the best matchup in sc2 atm, it's terrible. Mass mutas flying around shitting over everything, or a bio/mine rally that may win a game, but increasingly not. It's bad. It was bad when terrans were dominating a couple of months ago, and it's bad now. Very one dimensional. For the sake of this game as a spectator sport I don't mind seeing the change go through, hopefully terrans will experiment with new styles and strategies, maybe see more mech or various aggressive strategies instead of 3cc every game. In the short term it may suck, but in the long term, the game will be better for it.
the problem with mech is, that you´re playing the clock with it. I have a decent 2base mech allin. But I don´t want to bank the fate of a matchup on a 2base allin, because it will get figured out sooner or later. And since zerg can hit hive very early in the game, especially against mech, it´s hard to establish, when it´s countered that hard.
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
You are completely right. And the only thing why mech works so well in TvT is, that hellions/hellbats and Tanks counter marines. This could be solved with a stimpack nerf combinded with several buffs and changes to factory and starport units. But this is a very complex thing and probably all units would have to be adressed here. The huge mistake was, that this hasn't been done with HotS, because now it's very hard to do.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
Wait... The way you are talking to this guy and comparing to Strelok thought is ... is this the REAL Goody ?
If I remember correctly it's the goody account... If I remember correctly.
buddy i am not the Goody who is a grandmaster in sc2 .. i am just a TL poster .. sorry if i got you confused
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
Wait... The way you are talking to this guy and comparing to Strelok thought is ... is this the REAL Goody ?
If I remember correctly it's the goody account... If I remember correctly.
Mind blown
i am not the Goody that you people are meaning .. i am just a TL poster .. dont misunderstand .. im not the grandmaster terran
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
You are completely right. And the only thing why mech works so well in TvT is, that hellions/hellbats and Tanks counter marines. This could be solved with a stimpack nerf combinded with several buffs and changes to factory and starport units. But this is a very complex thing and probably all units would have to be adressed here. The huge mistake was, that this hasn't been done with HotS, because now it's very hard to do.
Not necessarily stim-pack nerf (there are other ways to acheve that), but the fact that it is hard to fix - it is.. true.. but not impossible my friend.. That's why there are experimentations and PTR maps and/or patches to test the impact
And - as you can see - Blizz is trying to fix some of it with this patch.. (though think the list would be complete if few more buffs were incorporated like for example the one with the second-mine-charge that I suggested above - instead)
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
Wait... The way you are talking to this guy and comparing to Strelok thought is ... is this the REAL Goody ?
If I remember correctly it's the goody account... If I remember correctly.
Mind blown
i am not the Goody that you people are meaning .. i am just a TL poster .. dont misunderstand .. im not the grandmaster terran
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
If they were so fucking random you will see them in games. They are testing. And some don't go through because they are not good...
After seeing the recents matches, WM nerf was too strong. I'm glad they are considering another approach. Is the tank buff still on ?
Muta is still quite strong but you have to be able to get to them (and that's sometimes hard). But ... i don't know how you could nerf muta. If you get the regen, WM will be so powerfull against them... if you take a bit of speed, marines will shred them... damage nerf will be really strong too... I feal that a change in muta is not going to happen
yep tank buff still on the testmap .. this is just an update on the testmap
And what do you think Mech needs to be viable TvP ?
I'm sure Blizzard would love to listen to Strelok and your thoughts about mech and what it needs to be viable and fun to watch (positionnal + no deathballish)... Strelok tried to write about it earlier this year, thought.
Wait... The way you are talking to this guy and comparing to Strelok thought is ... is this the REAL Goody ?
If I remember correctly it's the goody account... If I remember correctly.
Mind blown
i am not the Goody that you people are meaning .. i am just a TL poster .. dont misunderstand .. im not the grandmaster terran
Oh ok No big deal. I love you too
i was worried that whatever i said will be taken account on the real Goody .. lol
The radius nerf of the widow mine is a joke. I remember I told when they talked about that that was too huge, especially when they first to nerf it from 1.75 to 1.1.
Even 1.25 is too low and no terran would want to add tanks instead of widow mines since zerg are playing heavy mutas style and because of the power of vipers. The two spells of vipers make the tanks so useless and the little up of tank fire rhythm is useless and dont compensate the power of mutas and Vipers.
Tanks are dead and that was what David Kim and Justin bowder wanted to do and now they want to introduce mech play again. Mech play is only viable in TVT and on WOL also vs zerg but not after Queen patch since zerg outmacro terran.
And anyway bio mines is very APM demanded and need a very well careful use since widow mine has friendly fire and you have to stim, split, hit and run to avoid mines fire and banelings hit so you can lose everything on a bad move. And if you add siege tanks friendly fire lol, you will kill yourself your own army.
Also that s too compliacted to place well tanks, mines and move the bio and zerg can catch our army out of position and kill them all cause zerg army is very mobile.
At the beginning zergs thought mines were imba but right now they are learning to play and split they army ( as terrans does for 3 years to avoid baneling hits ) and to attack from many sides, to use overcyr in their army and sometimes use changelings. Anyway if zergs use a bit the infestors even if got nerf ( and oh god thank blizzard to have done that after 1 year and half of imbastor broodlords era ) 3 or 4 can lock army and you can go with glings and the widow mines shots will kill glings but also bio who cannot move.
Remember the GSL match between DRG and Innovation. Innovation even with a perfect without any mistake play lost vs DRG who played extremely well mutas glings.
So now the match is balanced, Zergs are complaining because they have to play from infestors broodlords a click spam F to mutas glings banelings ultras with many angles of attack, hit and run, detection, split and more careful attack. Now they have to play as terran has to play from the beginning.
On October 15 2013 19:51 nachtkap wrote: What happend to trying new things with the Nydus. Talked about it when HotS just got into beta and then nothing. I was hoping to see stuff like small limited distance creep highways, time limited 1hp ramps for bane/ling to make flanking more viable, no gas cost if placed on hatchery creep. and no I think those things would necessarily be balanced in the live version rigth now.
They're in the map editor, but the developers obviously decided against including them in the game. There is an interview floating around where Browder or Kim give some basic reasoning.
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
True that, but I also think that probably Blizz themselves know that the mine-splash nerf isn't the whole package, but only the beginning of the process..
The mine-changes that I suggested for example are simple a "use of blank space".. Namely - if you already nerf the unit vs the Zerg race as it was intended in it's design in the first place (though I generally disagree the concept of adding a unit that's only good vs one of the other 2 races, i.e. - 1-purpose only unit), then why not buff it vs Protoss when possible already as well..
Though it's a long and rather maybe too much of a radical process - there are ways to do it and not necessarily with the ones that I suggested.. But I think that even DK knows that these currently stated changes aren't the whole package.. Pretty sure he's aware of that, but also - wants to add them in such ways that those will feel as final as possible while gradually doing them..
About the other race's units though - true that not completely Terran fault - I agree, but if you play ladder as random, and when doing it - the first 2 things you notice when playing random that ZvT is pretty damn hard (not saying TvZ is easy - didn't say that ), and TvP is even harder as hell - then you can't not get to the conclusion that there's something wrong with the Terran race.. at least more than the other 2 of them
On October 15 2013 19:51 nachtkap wrote: What happend to trying new things with the Nydus. Talked about it when HotS just got into beta and then nothing. I was hoping to see stuff like small limited distance creep highways, time limited 1hp ramps for bane/ling to make flanking more viable, no gas cost if placed on hatchery creep. and no I think those things would necessarily be balanced in the live version rigth now.
They're in the map editor, but the developers obviously decided against including them in the game. There is an interview floating around where Browder or Kim give some basic reasoning.
In all honesty I'd rather have the old style Nydus + creep pooing overlords.
On October 15 2013 19:51 nachtkap wrote: What happend to trying new things with the Nydus. Talked about it when HotS just got into beta and then nothing. I was hoping to see stuff like small limited distance creep highways, time limited 1hp ramps for bane/ling to make flanking more viable, no gas cost if placed on hatchery creep. and no I think those things would necessarily be balanced in the live version rigth now.
They're in the map editor, but the developers obviously decided against including them in the game. There is an interview floating around where Browder or Kim give some basic reasoning.
In all honesty I'd rather have the old style Nydus + creep pooing overlords.
Yeah those nydus... If Blizzard make them back into the game (i know they won't) i want carriers to launch void rays :p
On October 15 2013 19:51 nachtkap wrote: What happend to trying new things with the Nydus. Talked about it when HotS just got into beta and then nothing. I was hoping to see stuff like small limited distance creep highways, time limited 1hp ramps for bane/ling to make flanking more viable, no gas cost if placed on hatchery creep. and no I think those things would necessarily be balanced in the live version rigth now.
They're in the map editor, but the developers obviously decided against including them in the game. There is an interview floating around where Browder or Kim give some basic reasoning.
In all honesty I'd rather have the old style Nydus + creep pooing overlords.
Yeah those nydus... If Blizzard make them back into the game (i know they won't) i want carriers to launch void rays :p
In fairness, it would need more than just a spotting overlord to make it
On October 15 2013 19:51 nachtkap wrote: What happend to trying new things with the Nydus. Talked about it when HotS just got into beta and then nothing. I was hoping to see stuff like small limited distance creep highways, time limited 1hp ramps for bane/ling to make flanking more viable, no gas cost if placed on hatchery creep. and no I think those things would necessarily be balanced in the live version rigth now.
They're in the map editor, but the developers obviously decided against including them in the game. There is an interview floating around where Browder or Kim give some basic reasoning.
In all honesty I'd rather have the old style Nydus + creep pooing overlords.
Yeah those nydus... If Blizzard make them back into the game (i know they won't) i want carriers to launch void rays :p
In fairness, it would need more than just a spotting overlord to make it
Well... Overlord should be abble to spawn nydus directly or to morph into one then !
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Well when i play terran i usually /dance to make the zerg think that i have more and i laugh at him. It never worked though...
Of course, you could drop... but that will do a base trade
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
If you make Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel in BW, I don't see why you won't make Marine/Maruader/Widowmine/Medivac in SC2
On October 15 2013 21:42 bObA wrote: The radius nerf of the widow mine is a joke. I remember I told when they talked about that that was too huge, especially when they first to nerf it from 1.75 to 1.1.
Even 1.25 is too low and no terran would want to add tanks instead of widow mines since zerg are playing heavy mutas style and because of the power of vipers. The two spells of vipers make the tanks so useless and the little up of tank fire rhythm is useless and dont compensate the power of mutas and Vipers.
Tanks are dead and that was what David Kim and Justin bowder wanted to do and now they want to introduce mech play again. Mech play is only viable in TVT and on WOL also vs zerg but not after Queen patch since zerg outmacro terran.
And anyway bio mines is very APM demanded and need a very well careful use since widow mine has friendly fire and you have to stim, split, hit and run to avoid mines fire and banelings hit so you can lose everything on a bad move. And if you add siege tanks friendly fire lol, you will kill yourself your own army.
Also that s too compliacted to place well tanks, mines and move the bio and zerg can catch our army out of position and kill them all cause zerg army is very mobile.
At the beginning zergs thought mines were imba but right now they are learning to play and split they army ( as terrans does for 3 years to avoid baneling hits ) and to attack from many sides, to use overcyr in their army and sometimes use changelings. Anyway if zergs use a bit the infestors even if got nerf ( and oh god thank blizzard to have done that after 1 year and half of imbastor broodlords era ) 3 or 4 can lock army and you can go with glings and the widow mines shots will kill glings but also bio who cannot move.
Remember the GSL match between DRG and Innovation. Innovation even with a perfect without any mistake play lost vs DRG who played extremely well mutas glings.
So now the match is balanced, Zergs are complaining because they have to play from infestors broodlords a click spam F to mutas glings banelings ultras with many angles of attack, hit and run, detection, split and more careful attack. Now they have to play as terran has to play from the beginning.
It's not the splits my friend - it's the fact that Zergs got a bit more "smarter" at the approaching of it.. Namely - you don't see Zergs running through the minefield any longer, chasing and trying to kill the Marines..
Instead - they wanna make sure that Terran is low on Mine count, or the front layer of mines being in a very low count at least.. Using mostly Banelings for it, and they also realized that it's not the "whole minefield" you wanna get rid of, but only the frontal closest layer instead..
So yah - the Zerg's target priorities have changed - Marines are no longer the #1 target, but instead the front layer of mines first, then the Marines come as second, and then maybe if having thinned out the minefield enough from all the sides possible - then go for the kill..
That's the difference - it's not the splits (it's nearly impossible to split while running in a mine-field), it's the "layering and peel-apart layers, possibly even thin them off one another" approach that changes it..
That still doesn't change the fact that the Widow-Mine wouldnt' need some changes though..
The tank-buff for example that "follows with it" is a good idea, but not enough (should probably be 20% fire rate buff instead of only 10%) I'd say.. And there still is possibly more that can be added/changed/tweaked after that
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
If you make Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel in BW, I don't see why you won't make Marine/Maruader/Widowmine/Medivac in SC2
Well to be faire SV oneshot defiler. Tanks do absurb damage to low health unit, medic can blind detectors so ghosts can be used with this, vessel can EMP too...
And you compare BW composition with SC2. But there's no lurker and composition MMTV is for lurker based army no ?
Not sure i follow. Maybe i missed the start of your discussion.
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
If you make Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel in BW, I don't see why you won't make Marine/Maruader/Widowmine/Medivac in SC2
Well to be faire SV oneshot defiler. Tanks do absurb damage to low health unit, medic can blind detectors so ghosts can be used with this, vessel can EMP too...
And you compare BW composition with SC2. But there's no lurker and composition MMTV is for lurker based army no ?
Not sure i follow. Maybe i missed the start of your discussion.
The guy was initially talking about terran bio play in BW being completely different than BW and my showing that compositionally they have a lot of similarities. He was trying to suggest that Bio play in SC2 is purely tier 1 while bio play in BW used the whole tech tree when in truth the SC2 bio tech tree simply doesn't use the Fusion Core and Nukes.
He then commented about what happens if Ultralisks show up in which I reinstated my point that the Medivac and the Marauder are in the same tech tier and hence if he had made Medivacs in BW he could be making Maruaders in SC2 to prevent ultralisk transitions.
The Zerg side of the discussion is not present afaik.
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
If you make Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel in BW, I don't see why you won't make Marine/Maruader/Widowmine/Medivac in SC2
Well to be faire SV oneshot defiler. Tanks do absurb damage to low health unit, medic can blind detectors so ghosts can be used with this, vessel can EMP too...
And you compare BW composition with SC2. But there's no lurker and composition MMTV is for lurker based army no ?
Not sure i follow. Maybe i missed the start of your discussion.
The guy was initially talking about terran bio play in BW being completely different than BW and my showing that compositionally they have a lot of similarities. He was trying to suggest that Bio play in SC2 is purely tier 1 while bio play in BW used the whole tech tree when in truth the SC2 bio tech tree simply doesn't use the Fusion Core and Nukes.
He then commented about what happens if Ultralisks show up in which I reinstated my point that the Medivac and the Marauder are in the same tech tier and hence if he had made Medivacs in BW he could be making Maruaders in SC2 to prevent ultralisk transitions.
The Zerg side of the discussion is not present afaik.
Oh so i was completly not in the point... Like at all
Well that is kind of true. Your point is valid i think
I don't know even in GM I play zergs that do some pretty dumb A-Move with a cloud of Lings and I drag them to the Mine with a Money shot.... Ofcourse this is ON NA server so I guess it doesn't say much. Still I play the same match I can break a Widow mine foothold with 4 widow mines with just a good engage and pre-spread ..........
On October 15 2013 18:44 VArsovskiSC wrote: The good thing is that they finally started to realize that it was the Terran race that is screwed up at least a bit in it's core design..
Namely it's a 1-unit race and there isn't anything else that will take at least a part of their "role" that's a higher-tier unit.. I mean - simply - the reason we see Marauders is because and/or ONLY when Marines start to die in greater numbers because of the fact that the opponent has splash..
TvZ is/was a bad matchup because Mines were designed to be a bit too anti-Zerg favored.. Now it's even worse because once the Zerg (somehow) cleans-up the marine-mine "mess" at his doorstep and gets Ultras - Terran can't do a single thing to kill them.. I mean - Terran can't afford to produce any of the Ultralisk-killing units (such as Banshee for example) because Zerg has everything that needs to guard the Ultras already from before (units that were forced by the Terran earlier on with the parade) such as Mutas and Overseers, e.t.c.. Even more so - Terran just don't have anything else good vs the Mutalisks beside the Marines (maybe Thors or sth would do, but they're too expensive to afford as well..)
However - having that in mind - I suggest the following changes TBH:
1 - reduce mine splash radius, change the mine upgrade to "store" one more mine instead.. The upgrade change is to make the Mines almost at least viable vs Protoss in the late game.. It's a win-win situation IMO - Zerg won't suffer all the splash right-away from the first time, but if they stay another say 3-5 sec - the mines (if not cleaned up) will fire again.. vs Protoss the benefit of this is that Warp-in mechanics won't "negate" the mines completely, so at the end of the day - they WILL help for some of the positional i.e. - mech - play..
2 - Reduce the Thor cost - down to 250/175 or sth, but reduce it's HP down to like 350 as well.. I mean the Voidray is already 250/150, so won't do too much problems, the good point in this however is - there will be some "point" in mixing mech and bio - like vs Ultralisks in the very late game from Zerg for example
3 - Give the Banshee an upgrade to shoot at Air units at a very close distance, or any ability of the sort to say.. Maybe sth like a 3 range barrage for some energy cost with a bit of splash - then maybe - MAYBE - there would be a point of going some of the Air play if Ultras pop-out overall..
I mean it's a bit of rusty matchup situations that Terran can't afford tech-switches while in the same time the tech they choose may seem a bit too strong (at least DPS-wise, like the bio only for example) at certain stages of the game-play.. =======================================================
The proposed changes that are already - "MIGHT WORK" - like the mine splash reduction with the Tank-firerate buff (though I think it should be even greater - about 20% faster fire instead of 10% maybe), but if that doesn't do it's thing - I think that those are "about" the changes that would be required at the end of the day..
1 - reduce mine splash 2 - change mine upgrade to have mine capacity of 2 mines each able to fire 5 seconds one after another 3 - change Thor cost a bit, reduce it's HP 4 - give the Banshee a way to defend itself from Air targets (at least temporarily) for some energy cost a bit
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
If you make Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel in BW, I don't see why you won't make Marine/Maruader/Widowmine/Medivac in SC2
Well to be faire SV oneshot defiler. Tanks do absurb damage to low health unit, medic can blind detectors so ghosts can be used with this, vessel can EMP too...
And you compare BW composition with SC2. But there's no lurker and composition MMTV is for lurker based army no ?
Not sure i follow. Maybe i missed the start of your discussion.
The guy was initially talking about terran bio play in BW being completely different than BW and my showing that compositionally they have a lot of similarities. He was trying to suggest that Bio play in SC2 is purely tier 1 while bio play in BW used the whole tech tree when in truth the SC2 bio tech tree simply doesn't use the Fusion Core and Nukes.
He then commented about what happens if Ultralisks show up in which I reinstated my point that the Medivac and the Marauder are in the same tech tier and hence if he had made Medivacs in BW he could be making Maruaders in SC2 to prevent ultralisk transitions.
The Zerg side of the discussion is not present afaik.
Oh so i was completly not in the point... Like at all
Well that is kind of true. Your point is valid i think
The soul of his point is still true despite the facts of the matter.
Marauders are not as interesting as a rax based marine support as a medic. A medivac although arguably more useful and game breaking, is not as sexy a starport support unit as a science vessel. And, well, many people have talked about the Widowmine/Siege Tank discussion before so no need to elaborate.
So although "facts" are on my side, I still lean heavily toward his opinion
On October 15 2013 21:42 bObA wrote: The radius nerf of the widow mine is a joke. I remember I told when they talked about that that was too huge, especially when they first to nerf it from 1.75 to 1.1.
Even 1.25 is too low and no terran would want to add tanks instead of widow mines since zerg are playing heavy mutas style and because of the power of vipers. The two spells of vipers make the tanks so useless and the little up of tank fire rhythm is useless and dont compensate the power of mutas and Vipers.
Tanks are dead and that was what David Kim and Justin bowder wanted to do and now they want to introduce mech play again. Mech play is only viable in TVT and on WOL also vs zerg but not after Queen patch since zerg outmacro terran.
And anyway bio mines is very APM demanded and need a very well careful use since widow mine has friendly fire and you have to stim, split, hit and run to avoid mines fire and banelings hit so you can lose everything on a bad move. And if you add siege tanks friendly fire lol, you will kill yourself your own army.
Also that s too compliacted to place well tanks, mines and move the bio and zerg can catch our army out of position and kill them all cause zerg army is very mobile.
At the beginning zergs thought mines were imba but right now they are learning to play and split they army ( as terrans does for 3 years to avoid baneling hits ) and to attack from many sides, to use overcyr in their army and sometimes use changelings. Anyway if zergs use a bit the infestors even if got nerf ( and oh god thank blizzard to have done that after 1 year and half of imbastor broodlords era ) 3 or 4 can lock army and you can go with glings and the widow mines shots will kill glings but also bio who cannot move.
Remember the GSL match between DRG and Innovation. Innovation even with a perfect without any mistake play lost vs DRG who played extremely well mutas glings.
So now the match is balanced, Zergs are complaining because they have to play from infestors broodlords a click spam F to mutas glings banelings ultras with many angles of attack, hit and run, detection, split and more careful attack. Now they have to play as terran has to play from the beginning.
It's not the splits my friend - it's the fact that Zergs got a bit more "smarter" at the approaching of it.. Namely - you don't see Zergs running through the minefield any longer, chasing and trying to kill the Marines..
Instead - they wanna make sure that Terran is low on Mine count, or the front layer of mines being in a very low count at least.. Using mostly Banelings for it, and they also realized that it's not the "whole minefield" you wanna get rid of, but only the frontal closest layer instead..
So yah - the Zerg's target priorities have changed - Marines are no longer the #1 target, but instead the front layer of mines first, then the Marines come as second, and then maybe if having thinned out the minefield enough from all the sides possible - then go for the kill..
That's the difference - it's not the splits (it's nearly impossible to split while running in a mine-field), it's the "layering and peel-apart layers, possibly even thin them off one another" approach that changes it..
That still doesn't change the fact that the Widow-Mine wouldnt' need some changes though..
The tank-buff for example that "follows with it" is a good idea, but not enough (should probably be 20% fire rate buff instead of only 10%) I'd say.. And there still is possibly more that can be added/changed/tweaked after that
also they run a group of 10-20 lings ahead of their army straight into the marine groups, to bait out as much mine shots as possible and pull them into the terran army for FF. Especially this move his very very effective and not that hard to pull off. Terran has basically to split his marines against not only banelings but his own mine shots. Together with better and better controlled muta/overseer flocks to one-shot mines this has decreased the effect of widow mine play by a lot over the last couple of months. As I stated many times: the success of terran in WCS korea season 2 (the only region in season 2, where terran was really successful anyways) was build on a very terran favored mappool in the OSL. You see what´s left of it, if you take away anaconda and GG Beach...
On October 15 2013 19:57 Destructicon wrote: [quote]
What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
If you make Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel in BW, I don't see why you won't make Marine/Maruader/Widowmine/Medivac in SC2
Well to be faire SV oneshot defiler. Tanks do absurb damage to low health unit, medic can blind detectors so ghosts can be used with this, vessel can EMP too...
And you compare BW composition with SC2. But there's no lurker and composition MMTV is for lurker based army no ?
Not sure i follow. Maybe i missed the start of your discussion.
The guy was initially talking about terran bio play in BW being completely different than BW and my showing that compositionally they have a lot of similarities. He was trying to suggest that Bio play in SC2 is purely tier 1 while bio play in BW used the whole tech tree when in truth the SC2 bio tech tree simply doesn't use the Fusion Core and Nukes.
He then commented about what happens if Ultralisks show up in which I reinstated my point that the Medivac and the Marauder are in the same tech tier and hence if he had made Medivacs in BW he could be making Maruaders in SC2 to prevent ultralisk transitions.
The Zerg side of the discussion is not present afaik.
Oh so i was completly not in the point... Like at all
Well that is kind of true. Your point is valid i think
The soul of his point is still true despite the facts of the matter.
Marauders are not as interesting as a rax based marine support as a medic. A medivac although arguably more useful and game breaking, is not as sexy a starport support unit as a science vessel. And, well, many people have talked about the Widowmine/Siege Tank discussion before so no need to elaborate.
So although "facts" are on my side, I still lean heavily toward his opinion
Oh i will never contradict BW over SC2 (as you can see in my sig :p).
On October 15 2013 20:53 VArsovskiSC wrote: [quote]
Will risk to be as "rude" as your reply was to my post.. Not because it was written in a badly manner or I feel offended, but because you didn't understand at all what I wanted to say..
I dind't say that Terran was a 1-A unit race..
I said that Terran is a 1-unit (i.e. - Marine-only) race.. The difference is huuuge my friend.. Problem is that every other unit that Terran has is designed for Marine support as opposed to work on it's own in some way (Banshee is the exception there, ofc. - only if the opponent doesn't have any air)..
So yah - make that difference in your head - between - 1-A, and Marine-only race.. I already understand that people are much more "burdened" with the 1-A concept, but still - Marine-only IMO is a problem (in it's own way) as well..
And TBH - even Blizz themselves know that the "Marine-only till get hard-countered" race is a problem as well - that's why they're trying to fix mech.. That may not be the only reason of why they wanna make mech work well, but surely is one of them..
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
If you make Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel in BW, I don't see why you won't make Marine/Maruader/Widowmine/Medivac in SC2
Well to be faire SV oneshot defiler. Tanks do absurb damage to low health unit, medic can blind detectors so ghosts can be used with this, vessel can EMP too...
And you compare BW composition with SC2. But there's no lurker and composition MMTV is for lurker based army no ?
Not sure i follow. Maybe i missed the start of your discussion.
The guy was initially talking about terran bio play in BW being completely different than BW and my showing that compositionally they have a lot of similarities. He was trying to suggest that Bio play in SC2 is purely tier 1 while bio play in BW used the whole tech tree when in truth the SC2 bio tech tree simply doesn't use the Fusion Core and Nukes.
He then commented about what happens if Ultralisks show up in which I reinstated my point that the Medivac and the Marauder are in the same tech tier and hence if he had made Medivacs in BW he could be making Maruaders in SC2 to prevent ultralisk transitions.
The Zerg side of the discussion is not present afaik.
Oh so i was completly not in the point... Like at all
Well that is kind of true. Your point is valid i think
The soul of his point is still true despite the facts of the matter.
Marauders are not as interesting as a rax based marine support as a medic. A medivac although arguably more useful and game breaking, is not as sexy a starport support unit as a science vessel. And, well, many people have talked about the Widowmine/Siege Tank discussion before so no need to elaborate.
So although "facts" are on my side, I still lean heavily toward his opinion
Oh i will never contradict BW over SC2 (as you can see in my sig :p).
I represented the "Zerg side" of things, and the other gentleman (Destruction) represented the "Terran side" of things.. Until it became the BW vs SC2 after comparison thing..
(though the point why did BW get mentioned is - did SC2 have the meta-matchup situation have well solved up, or didn't)
Just helping to not get derailed (if you wanted to proceed the discussion in any sort of way).. ======================================================
EDIT: Sorry friend, thought you were saying that you wouldn't discuss it, as - in terms - you weren't interested, but what you trully meant is that it wasn't the case, but prefered BW overall..
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Siege Tanks already destroy zerg gound units easily while marines counter Mutalisks. Widow Mines are just so damn cheap that you rarely see any Siege Tanks in TvZ.
On October 15 2013 19:57 Destructicon wrote: What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
He didnt say it was a race of 1-a units. He said it was a race of ONE UNIT. Which definately has some truth to it.
Also I dont know if this minechange will nerf it at the highest level. Often mines cause significant friendly fire due to zerg knowing how to bait it. This will diminish that risk somewhat and so mutas wont have as easy time sniping mines (you can be closer to your own mines with the bulk of your army without risking losing all of it to splash if blings run in). While it may not nerf innovations tvz, It will still nerf tvz quite a bit at lower levels I bet.
The Thor is such a shitty unit, they ought to do SOMETHING to it at least. Just buff its AA tbh; one should be able to mech and have some decent AA from the ground.
Well you know... now that banelings will hit our armies and not die outside the 1.25, at least we'll get all slimy and lubed up, so it'll be less painful to get FU*KED.
On October 15 2013 21:18 Destructicon wrote: [quote]
Excuse me then, I saw 1A race, not 1 unit race. yes totally different discussion. And I do agree with you to some extent. Bio is a very self contained composition. However I think the problems are from both the design of the other races as well as the design of terran.
I'll use a BW example here because its the model I know that worked best. In BW, you had marine, medic as the core of the army, and zerg had lings, when the game progressed into the mid game the zerg would add lurkers for space control, defense and offense, and terran added tanks to their composition to combat lurkers from a safe distance as well as for their own brand of space control, in the late game zerg got to defilers to be able to fight cost efficiently again with dark swarm and plague, meanwhile terran got to science vessel to counter defilers, masses of lings and other units. Finally the zerg would try and counter science vessels with scourge which, would be countered by marines.
I use the above example because it was a closed circular counter system but also because all tech trees where used by both sides, and both sides had some sort of space control the game had a clearly flow and an overarching game plan by both sides, but a lot of things could still happen in between.
That just doesn't exist in SC2 to the same extent, and its not only because bio is very efficient in and of itself, its also because the other races have very powerful tools to combat terran T3 and T2 options as well. Yes you could say, redesign terran in such a way that as the game progresses, it becomes pivotal to add a small number of thors and ravens into the mix, but that requires a radical re-assessment of the balance of all other areas.
So yes, I agree with you, terran might be a bit too bio focused, but to be frank its not completely their fault, and again I'm not sure your suggested tweaks would change that.
In fairness, TvZ bio play uses units from all 3 tech trees as well and is the incorporation of barracks units, supported by aoe units from the factory and supported by flying spell casters in medivacs as the game progresses.
Medic looks cooler than marauder Siege tank looks cooler than widow mine Science Vessels looks cooler than medivac
But it's still the same dynamic as it was in BW tech wise.
Hmmmm.. Then tell me what to do as Terran if nearly all you've got is Mines and Marines and Medivacs, at the moment when the Zerg makes several Ultras with more coming on the way ?
Not really complete TBH, there's still more to it that's not yet made..
If you make Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel in BW, I don't see why you won't make Marine/Maruader/Widowmine/Medivac in SC2
Well to be faire SV oneshot defiler. Tanks do absurb damage to low health unit, medic can blind detectors so ghosts can be used with this, vessel can EMP too...
And you compare BW composition with SC2. But there's no lurker and composition MMTV is for lurker based army no ?
Not sure i follow. Maybe i missed the start of your discussion.
The guy was initially talking about terran bio play in BW being completely different than BW and my showing that compositionally they have a lot of similarities. He was trying to suggest that Bio play in SC2 is purely tier 1 while bio play in BW used the whole tech tree when in truth the SC2 bio tech tree simply doesn't use the Fusion Core and Nukes.
He then commented about what happens if Ultralisks show up in which I reinstated my point that the Medivac and the Marauder are in the same tech tier and hence if he had made Medivacs in BW he could be making Maruaders in SC2 to prevent ultralisk transitions.
The Zerg side of the discussion is not present afaik.
Oh so i was completly not in the point... Like at all
Well that is kind of true. Your point is valid i think
The soul of his point is still true despite the facts of the matter.
Marauders are not as interesting as a rax based marine support as a medic. A medivac although arguably more useful and game breaking, is not as sexy a starport support unit as a science vessel. And, well, many people have talked about the Widowmine/Siege Tank discussion before so no need to elaborate.
So although "facts" are on my side, I still lean heavily toward his opinion
Oh i will never contradict BW over SC2 (as you can see in my sig :p).
I represented the "Zerg side" of things, and the other gentleman (Destruction) represented the "Terran side" of things.. Until it became the BW vs SC2 after comparison thing..
(though the point why did BW get mentioned is - did SC2 have the meta-matchup situation have well solved up, or didn't)
Just helping to not get derailed (if you wanted to proceed the discussion in any sort of way).. ======================================================
EDIT: Sorry friend, thought you were saying that you wouldn't discuss it, as - in terms - you weren't interested, but what you trully meant is that it wasn't the case, but prefered BW overall..
On October 15 2013 02:51 archwaykitten wrote: Why not have revelation reveal cloaked or burrowed units as well? That seems like a more elegant solution, and it wouldn't be overpowered. The only unit I can really see it affecting is swarmhosts.
that could well be overpowered I think. It would help a lot against ghosts though...
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
There is plenty of options in TvZ, but T are too focused on mines to exploit them. You can't know what mine-light play would fare when no good Korean do it.
On October 15 2013 19:57 Destructicon wrote: What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
He didnt say it was a race of 1-a units. He said it was a race of ONE UNIT. Which definately has some truth to it.
Also I dont know if this minechange will nerf it at the highest level. Often mines cause significant friendly fire due to zerg knowing how to bait it. This will diminish that risk somewhat and so mutas wont have as easy time sniping mines (you can be closer to your own mines with the bulk of your army without risking losing all of it to splash if blings run in). While it may not nerf innovations tvz, It will still nerf tvz quite a bit at lower levels I bet.
The Thor is such a shitty unit, they ought to do SOMETHING to it at least. Just buff its AA tbh; one should be able to mech and have some decent AA from the ground.
They did something. They buffed it's AA against anything not light greatly.
Preferred the revelation range buff tbh as I don't think people burrowing/cloaking their units to avoid it was the real issue at hand (though I'd imagine given how zerg should always get burrowed the new change does allow the meta to even get to a point where revelation is used in your standard game), however the new mine nerf seems 1000 times better than the old one, I highly approve. Though I question whether we even need to nerf mines given that zvt is getting z favored which should result in terrans exploring new options anyways, but blizz has never been a fan of letting players figure issues out anyways.
Isnt the whole point of a test map to be able to make abit more drastic changes? changing various things and then picking up the good changes from those, instead they are making small tweaks that will only keep the game sinking....
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
There is plenty of options in TvZ, but T are too focused on mines to exploit them. You can't know what mine-light play would fare when no good Korean do it.
Maybe you as great player could share those options with us? I never go 4M in TvZ. My win rate is a quite clear representation of that... At least mech works reasonable vs toss. But vs zerg, not so much.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Siege Tanks already destroy zerg gound units easily while marines counter Mutalisks. Widow Mines are just so damn cheap that you rarely see any Siege Tanks in TvZ.
I wish that was true, then I could win vs zerg.
Nice marines counter mutalisks. But I cannot keep streaming forward like with 4M when I got siege tanks. Result is that I am constantly on the backfoot defending vs mutas, instead of the other way around. And then you lose. Also good to know my siege tanks destroy ultralisks. And that going mech is so great vs swarmhosts. Also I will inform my siege tanks to quit whining and just destroy those roaches while blinding cloud is casted on them.
Compared to WoL (bio-) mech is severely nerfed vs zerg. So I don't see why you would think it is so good against zerg now. And if iti s so awesome, and widow mines are even more awesome, how come terrans don't dominate but more get dominated?
On October 15 2013 19:57 Destructicon wrote: What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
He didnt say it was a race of 1-a units. He said it was a race of ONE UNIT. Which definately has some truth to it.
Also I dont know if this minechange will nerf it at the highest level. Often mines cause significant friendly fire due to zerg knowing how to bait it. This will diminish that risk somewhat and so mutas wont have as easy time sniping mines (you can be closer to your own mines with the bulk of your army without risking losing all of it to splash if blings run in). While it may not nerf innovations tvz, It will still nerf tvz quite a bit at lower levels I bet.
The Thor is such a shitty unit, they ought to do SOMETHING to it at least. Just buff its AA tbh; one should be able to mech and have some decent AA from the ground.
They did something. They buffed it's AA against anything not light greatly.
Well the issue is currently mainly light air, so a buff against non-light isn't very useful. And while high impact is sometimes handy, it isn't that big of a buff, especially when targets are even slightly clumped.
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Siege Tanks already destroy zerg gound units easily while marines counter Mutalisks. Widow Mines are just so damn cheap that you rarely see any Siege Tanks in TvZ.
I have no idea what game you're playing but it's definately not SC2.
On October 15 2013 19:57 Destructicon wrote: What you said is so far from the truth that it hurts. Terran is not, at its core a race of 1 A units, in fact it is the farthest from that model, Terran is the race of units that require the most babysitting to get value out of. Marines, marauders and ghost melt to any sort of aoe, they require constant splitting and great care when advancing. That's why you see marine splitting, kitting and storm dodging, because otherwise the terran army would just melt.
And even the other units, tanks and mines are very positional in nature, they require a great deal of thought on how to optimally place to get the maximum results, and it takes a good deal of micro to achieve that positioning. The only true 1 A units are BCs and Thors.
And your suggestions don't actually improve the game, the mine nerf already seems unnecessary when you look at how good zergs have gotten lately at dealing with them, the Thor buff doesn't do anything, its still a borring 1 A unit, but now its just cheaper and the banshees are fine the way they are.
Banshees are interesting because they have clear strengths and weaknesses, they deal very good damage, but they must be microed for maximum potential and their lack of AtA weapons makes them really vulnerable once proper counters are out. And a short range AtA attack isn't going to help them at all, mutas will still shred them because of speed, regen and glaive bounce, vikings still obliterate them from a distance and, in the unlikely case toss builds a SG, phoenix still tear them apart.
He didnt say it was a race of 1-a units. He said it was a race of ONE UNIT. Which definately has some truth to it.
Also I dont know if this minechange will nerf it at the highest level. Often mines cause significant friendly fire due to zerg knowing how to bait it. This will diminish that risk somewhat and so mutas wont have as easy time sniping mines (you can be closer to your own mines with the bulk of your army without risking losing all of it to splash if blings run in). While it may not nerf innovations tvz, It will still nerf tvz quite a bit at lower levels I bet.
The Thor is such a shitty unit, they ought to do SOMETHING to it at least. Just buff its AA tbh; one should be able to mech and have some decent AA from the ground.
They did something. They buffed it's AA against anything not light greatly.
a) their buff to non-light air is generally useless b) the problem is light-air. conclusion: buff light-air AA and remove the current completely shitty ability.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Yes. Players needs to figure out those things. I would hope that blizzard does not patch the game so often.
Maybe you as great player could share those options with us? I never go 4M in TvZ. My win rate is a quite clear representation of that... At least mech works reasonable vs toss. But vs zerg, not so much.
I have never ever seen mech work vs p without p messing up, imo it works better vs z by far (also shown by the fact that flash/gumiho have actually won games vs z on pro level meching while i haven't seen anyone at prolevel (i think last time was goody vs some random foreign toss on akilon at a dreamhack or smth and goody is not my definition of pro level) actually beat a toss meching. Your winrate doesn't mean shit for anything. Anything that happens in your games is completly meaningless when talking about balance. I wish people would realize that you literally have to play at the absolut top for balance to even slightly matter in your games.
On October 15 2013 19:51 nachtkap wrote: What happend to trying new things with the Nydus. Talked about it when HotS just got into beta and then nothing. I was hoping to see stuff like small limited distance creep highways, time limited 1hp ramps for bane/ling to make flanking more viable, no gas cost if placed on hatchery creep. and no I think those things would necessarily be balanced in the live version rigth now.
They're in the map editor, but the developers obviously decided against including them in the game. There is an interview floating around where Browder or Kim give some basic reasoning.
I found links to the bnet post where this was explained but the posts itself don't exist anymore. does anyone have an alternate source?
Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
10-20 turrets cost 1000-2000 minerals how terran is suppose to have those when they spend all the mineral in marines and mines already..... Ah yes taking more bases with mules but... no, they have to build 10 turrets for each new base -_-.
BW and SC2 are different in many points and economy is not comparable between the two.
The reason I like the mine change and it's maybe a signal of hope for the future is that it's a change that :
A- makes senses. Closer you are more damage it does. Much better than what I was expecting something like "mines now do -15 damage to banelings." If you are a lower level player running into mines you won't see much difference but higher level players will.
B- it encourages micro/splitting. If you see a mine shot coming you can quickly try and spread units. Any change that rewards micro for the game is good.
Not sure why they are obsessed with oracle/toss harassment. Blizzard seems to have no clue on Protoss which I think is the most pressing issue right now, the race simply doesn't work right.
Lastly, I have said this before but please make transformation servos not only all hellbat/hellion change but reduce transformation time for Thor/Viking/tanks by half. That would be a great late game upgrade that would help mech play I think more than a damage buff. Thors would be more versatile, Vikings could he microed up and down for harass and help in battles, and tanks can be repositioned faster which helps vs blinding cloud and being caught out of position. It would be an all around buff to mech and mech's mobility that wouldn't change the game much at lower levels but make late game mech more fun to play/use/watch.
Maybe you as great player could share those options with us? I never go 4M in TvZ. My win rate is a quite clear representation of that... At least mech works reasonable vs toss. But vs zerg, not so much.
I have never ever seen mech work vs p without p messing up, imo it works better vs z by far (also shown by the fact that flash/gumiho have actually won games vs z on pro level meching while i haven't seen anyone at prolevel (i think last time was goody vs some random foreign toss on akilon at a dreamhack or smth and goody is not my definition of pro level) actually beat a toss meching. Your winrate doesn't mean shit for anything. Anything that happens in your games is completly meaningless when talking about balance. I wish people would realize that you literally have to play at the absolut top for balance to even slightly matter in your games.
It is true that my personal winrate doesn't say much. But it was in response to someone who said terrans dont do anything besides 4M. And still while around 1% of the terran pros mech vs zerg I wouldn't really call it viable.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Comparing bw and sc2 is silly in this context. Spending that much on your base defense is silly because your army is too small and would get crushed. In BW, you could defend with a smaller army for you to get turrets out. It is also much faster to rebuild mutas in sc2.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Yes. Players needs to figure out those things. I would hope that blizzard does not patch the game so often.
Yes. Terrans need to figure out those things. Zergs get their problems solved by balance changes, Terrans have to figure out. Since it has allways been this way, why change it, huh?
edit: it was more or less the same with the queen range buff. Terrans were told after the patch, that they need to figure out how to play, since their old stuff was thrown out of the window. And after 3-4 months they figured out....
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Yes. Players needs to figure out those things. I would hope that blizzard does not patch the game so often.
Yes. Terrans need to figure out those things. Zergs get their problems solved by balance changes, Terrans have to figure out. Since it has allways been this way, why change it, huh?
Plus it's not like Terrans ignore they have to play Tower defence in lategame TvZ with the armor/range building upgrade; but spamming 10-15 Turrets per base is simply too expensive, and 30+ mutas barely care anyway as there are always weak spots Zerg can exploit.
They should increase the splash damage of the siege tank in my opinion. But I'm happy they are reducing the widow mine nerfs. If the other nerf had gone through I think ZvT would've been extremely zerg favored (I think it's already starting to swing into the favor of the zerg.)
Hoping Blizzard doesnt repeat what happened in WOL, where they kept buffing zerg too fast without giving their prior buffs a chance to affect the game. In the end Zerg just ended up becoming way too strong and it could've been prevented if they had given each balance change more time to set in. I already think making changes very specific to ZvT is way too soon, the effect of the overseer change is still not quite figured out I feel (Example: Heavy muta builds starting to become very dominant now)
They should be careful in how they approach the balance, as terrans are not the dominant race at the moment, so nerfs to key units in a certain matchup can be very difficult for Blizzard to succesfully implement!
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Yes. Players needs to figure out those things. I would hope that blizzard does not patch the game so often.
Yes. Terrans need to figure out those things. Zergs get their problems solved by balance changes, Terrans have to figure out. Since it has allways been this way, why change it, huh?
edit: it was more or less the same with the queen range buff. Terrans were told after the patch, that they need to figure out how to play, since their old stuff was thrown out of the window. And after 3-4 months they figured out....
that they can´t really win TvZ anymore.
God the aggressivity... I never said that zerg patches were good... I play zerg and terran so your attack is unjustified. I said that i would like Blizzard to patch the game less often because ALL RACE could figure out stuff. And when it's clear that no one can achieve something different. Maybe patch.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Please don't talk about Flash turrets in BW... it brings back angry memory :p
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
60 damage and friendly splash ---> interesting unit.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
I'm all for peppering in an oracle to keep track of mid-late game armies, but the range buff was good for that. it's difficult to scout around the map to find the army and then reveal it without getting sniped. This new 'buff' feels more like a bug fix than anything else
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets.
Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much?
I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight.
Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets.
Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much?
I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight.
Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
Well I think thats connected to a) due to them going t1 all game long they feel like every mineral counts and b) terran either feels the game is balanced (aka the matchup is 55/45 for t) or super imba for their race (50/50 or worse) and they can't win.
On October 16 2013 00:41 saddaromma wrote: I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems.
No, that´s not true. Colossi and MMM are a result of a problem, that lies deeper in the core design of the game. The root of everything that is considered problematic in SC2 (colossi boring high reward a move unit f.e., marine too cost efficiant for a basic unit, widow mines too cost efficiant, force fields op, etc. etc. we all know these complains and there is a bit of truth in all of them) is a design reaction of the way too cheap production of zerg: a hatchery spawns a larva every 15seconds. a larva inject generates 4 larva after 40 seconds. to make the math easier and to include the fact, that noone is able to perfectly execute larva injects, we assume one larva inject every 45 seconds. With that a hatchery with a queen generates 7 larves every 45 seconds at the cost of 500 minerals. A Terran orbital command alone already costs 550 minerals. A baracks with an add on. costs 200mins and 50/25 gas. To get the production of a hatchery you need 2 reactor baracks or 3 techlab baracks. So a 2base terran spents additional 1k mins and 100-200 gas to match the production a 2base zerg gets just with his expansions. Yes there are still the tech buildings, but they are not very expensive. And if Terran wants to produce a larger number of high tech units, the costs increase even more. The comparison between protoss and zerg goes the same way, but to a lesser extend - but hits them equally hard due to the lack of the mule. So to make up for this huge discrepancy in infrastructure cost (which wasn´t the case at all in BW btw. because larva inject didn´t exist and zerg had to build several macro hatches), the armies of terran and protoss have to be cost efficiant. But they are not allowed to be too cost efficiant or zergs are facing armies they can´t beat no matter what they are throwing at them. So the consequence of the larva inject is, that you have to hit a thin line of cost efficiancy for both Terran and Protoss in their vZ matchups to make them fair. Of course we only had very few periods of SC2 history, where those matchups were in this thin corridor. You´d had to adress larva inject and with it probably every unit in the game, to solve this issue. And I´m sure DKim is not aware of this.
I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets.
Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much?
I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight.
Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
I'm not sure what kind of WoL you where, watching, perhaps the one from an alternate dimension, because it was never ever standard practice to build turret walls anywhere in WoL.
The standard and best response to mutas in WoL was the same as it is in HoTS, you multi-task across multiple fronts in such a way as to force the zerg to keep his mutas on the defensive, losing tempo at any time and allowing mutas to come in and harass usually resulted in death of the terran.
And if you dedicated resources to building turrets then you where making less units which resulted in resulting tempo anyway which still lead to your death.
Also BW=/= SC2. No the dynamics in SC2 disallow making turret walls. In BW the zerg was heavily limited in production by larva, meaning they could never really build workers or army as explosively as they could in SC2. Mutas where made as a space control and harass tool to divert some of the terran's resources away from army and delay him long enough for the zerg to get out lurkers in strategic locations and to drone behind this enough to reach hive and defilers.
In SC2, with zerg's explosive production, if you sit back too long and build turrets not only will your max out be slower but the zerg will have also expanded a couple of more times ahead of you and will likely have accumulated a bank of larva and resources large enough to either obliterate your army outright if you do a big push, or tech switch into something that will kill your army.
And no, the dynamics of bio in BW are also not similar to those of bio in SC2. In Sc2 more or less bio with medivacs is a self contained, mineral heavy composition that, with enough micro could be cost efficient on its own. As examples we have MKP vs DRG's great clashes last year at MLG Arena and MLG Winter Championships.
That same level of cost efficiency you just don't have in BW, in BW if you didn't have siege tanks your army would flat out die because of lurkers and defilers. In SC2, if you split and stutter step well enough and are on top of your macro you can make bio work vs even banes, infestors or mutas. At least you could in WoL, it might not be as possible now because of muta regen.
Another huge issues is gas. The dynamics of BW and HoTS are already vastly different because in BW and WoL you had to invest a lot of gas into making tanks, which came with their sets of advantages and disadvantages and created their own interesting dynamics. You couldn't just reinforce constantly, every time you lost tanks you had to wait out a bit and build another sufficiently large force, during this time you risked losing tempo and losing the game, so you had to do drops to keep the zerg on his toes.
In HoTS you because of the constant rally and innate cost efficiency of bio you can just reinforce and push constantly, which requires a very different approach and methodological response form the zerg.
Also the old dynamics of WoL can no longer work in HoTS because muta speed and muta regen means losing tempo in the MU can be outright devastating for the terran.
To sum it up. BW=/=SC2. The bio, tank vessel dynamics of BW are totally different from the bio+ mine dynamics of HoTS, because of the problem of tempo, inertia and resource allocation and because of the incredible cost efficiency of bio + medivacs in SC2.
On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote: I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
On October 16 2013 00:41 saddaromma wrote: I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems.
The core of many problems primarily lies in the economy/production system. Terrible units like the Colossus add further damage, but are not responsible for this.
It was funny to watch Jaedong vs MC game, on Whirlwind, in the last WCS Season finals; after typical SC2 nonsense like this, the game ended up in a low-economy situation. And suddenly, things started to matter again. Both players were microing units like Archons and Ultralisks, which are usually a-moved without any further attention, (a) because they had time to do so without 50 other units nearby destroying everything in a matter of seconds, (b) because they were anew precious, since resources were again rare, instead of being only something vaguely valuable in a 900 gas/minut economy. But it was only a brief hiatus in the usual raging storm of SC2 mass production.
On October 16 2013 00:41 saddaromma wrote: I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems.
The core of many problems primarily lies in the economy/production system. Terrible units like the Colossus add further damage, but are not responsible for this.
It was funny to watch Jaedong vs MC game, on Whirlwind, in the last WCS Season finals; after typical SC2 nonsense like this, the game ended up in a low-economy situation. And suddenly, things started to matter again. Both players were microing units like Archons and Ultralisks, which are usually a-moved without any further attention, (a) because they had time to do so without 50 other units nearby destroying everything in a matter of seconds, (b) because they were anew precious, since resources were again rare, instead of being only something vaguely valuable in a 900 gas/minut economy. But it was only a brief hiatus in the usual raging storm of SC2 mass production.
Yeah... I really miss the low econ slugfests of the smaller maps of 2010. Is there a way to mimic that with larger maps?
On October 16 2013 00:41 saddaromma wrote: I doubt DK will ever realise colossi and MMM are core of all problems.
The core of many problems primarily lies in the economy/production system. Terrible units like the Colossus add further damage, but are not responsible for this.
It was funny to watch Jaedong vs MC game, on Whirlwind, in the last WCS Season finals; after typical SC2 nonsense like this, the game ended up in a low-economy situation. And suddenly, things started to matter again. Both players were microing units like Archons and Ultralisks, which are usually a-moved without any further attention, (a) because they had time to do so without 50 other units nearby destroying everything in a matter of seconds, (b) because they were anew precious, since resources were again rare, instead of being only something vaguely valuable in a 900 gas/minut economy. But it was only a brief hiatus in the usual raging storm of SC2 mass production.
Yeah... I really miss the low econ slugfests of the smaller maps of 2010. Is there a way to mimic that with larger maps?
Nope, especially with things like MSC, Tanks coming with Siege Mode research, Queens range 5, etc. Blizzard purposefully nuked a lot of agressive options, manifestly to push the game towards 3-bases play.
On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote: I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
the question you and everyone who doesn´t understand, why mutalisks are such a problem for terran to deal with, should ask yourself is: why are only mutalisks such a problem? Noone complains about phoenixes or oracles, who are also high mobile flying harassment units. The answer is simple: Mutalisks are the absolut harassment unit. They are completely well rounded. They are good at killing every kind of unit. From workers, to buildings of any kind, to expensive tech units of any kind. And this separates them from other harassment units, that are allways limited. Hellions only deal decent dps to light units as workers. Phoenixes can´t attack buildings at all, zerglings and zealots are easily blocked by walls and so on. Mutalisk harassment can hit you everywhere. It can hit you at your production, at your supply depots, at your worker lines, just everywhere. So in order to deal with them, you have to cover a big space. In addition damaging a mutalisk is no success at all, since the regeneration is too strong. You have to kill them, or you don´t achieve anything. Protoss were given better phoenixes to deal with them. terran.... got actually nothing. Packs of 3 widow mines? They have range 5, they cover way less than a chunk of turrets and cost 6 supply together. How big is your army supposed to be, if you cover your bases with more than 10 WM? Terran has no unit, that comes even close to match the mobility of a mutalisk and is able to fight it. So Terran has to zone them. But the regeneration makes zoning very costly. So the only solution is to force the mutalisks to be needed for defence. And that has been the strategy for all HotS long. But this Strategy is showing more and more weeknesses in the past months.
On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote: I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
This doesn't really work because the mines cost supply and gas, and the mutas regen so quick that once the mines pop the mutas back off a bit and heal and then come rape your base. Best case would be all three mines going off, but to do that you would need them close enough together that they wouldnt cover the whole base anyways. My options vs mutas these days seem limited to being out on the map by the time they pop so that Z cant break them off to attack me without dieing himself.
If I take the resources to properly secure the bases with turrets, then my max and expansions get slowed down to the point that Im trapped in my base anyways because by the time I have enough to move out Zerg has a far superior army and economy. And it takes a stupid amount of turrets to shut down a decent sized muta flock.
Edit: Guy above me posted as I was replying. He is totally right, but there is one other aspect he didn't mention that factors in, and thats massproduceability. Its hard for the other races to ramp out ridiculous amounts of units like phoeni or oracles or banshees, but zerg has 1 building hard tech shifts so all he needs is a single spire, not multiple other buildings (excepting the hatcheries, which Z builds anyways).
On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote: I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
Best case scenario is that two mines hit, which means you now got a flock of mutalisks - 2 in your base. With the range they have you need at least 3 groups in your main, and two per expansions. On 3 bases that is 42 supply gone. And they can probably just snipe all 3 mines without losing anything.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets.
Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much?
I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight.
Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
No one complains you have to make 3 or more turrets. 3 or more turrets however don't do shit against mutalisk flocks. Sure if it is just delaying them a bit once and then you going on the offensive again some turrets help. But if you cannot be continiously attacking anymore then they have to do more than delay the mutas slightly, especially since there is nothing stopping the zerg from getting 20+ mutas.
In WoL days you were happy if your thor got of one or two shots on clumped up mutas, that was considered a win. In HotS no one cares since they regen it anyway. So 4-6 turrets + a thor is not going to save your ass, they just get more and more since they have their regen, and when they got enough they magic box the thor.
And then you say it is weird that people complain about a counterattack (why only counterattack and not regular attack? Or harrasment?) that the turret can fight? Lets say we make photon cannon only able to shoot zerglings. For 1 damage per shot, with current ROF. Then because photon cannons can only shoot zerglings protoss should be fine against zerglings?
Compared to WoL mutas got significantly more speed and regen. On the counter department terran got WMs. Which aren't that useful against their harrasment, but they allow an agressive playstyle. Now they want to nerf widow mines into the ground. Is it then really strange that WoL tactics won't cut it against mutas? Add a whole other bunch of nerfs to siege tank play against zerg (vipers, swarmhosts, ultralisks), and it suddenly makes sense why 10% ROF increase doesn't cut it...
On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote: I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
Best case scenario is that two mines hit, which means you now got a flock of mutalisks - 2 in your base. With the range they have you need at least 3 groups in your main, and two per expansions. On 3 bases that is 42 supply gone. And they can probably just snipe all 3 mines without losing anything.
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets.
Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much?
I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight.
Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
No one complains you have to make 3 or more turrets. 3 or more turrets however don't do shit against mutalisk flocks. Sure if it is just delaying them a bit once and then you going on the offensive again some turrets help. But if you cannot be continiously attacking anymore then they have to do more than delay the mutas slightly, especially since there is nothing stopping the zerg from getting 20+ mutas.
In WoL days you were happy if your thor got of one or two shots on clumped up mutas, that was considered a win. In HotS no one cares since they regen it anyway. So 4-6 turrets + a thor is not going to save your ass, they just get more and more since they have their regen, and when they got enough they magic box the thor.
And then you say it is weird that people complain about a counterattack (why only counterattack and not regular attack? Or harrasment?) that the turret can fight? Lets say we make photon cannon only able to shoot zerglings. For 1 damage per shot, with current ROF. Then because photon cannons can only shoot zerglings protoss should be fine against zerglings?
Compared to WoL mutas got significantly more speed and regen. On the counter department terran got WMs. Which aren't that useful against their harrasment, but they allow an agressive playstyle. Now they want to nerf widow mines into the ground. Is it then really strange that WoL tactics won't cut it against mutas? Add a whole other bunch of nerfs to siege tank play against zerg (vipers, swarmhosts, ultralisks), and it suddenly makes sense why 10% ROF increase doesn't cut it...
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
Currently Protoss make 1-3 cannons at their front against zerg, 1-2 cannons in their main and natural against terran and 2-4 cannons per expansion vs either race.
At 3 bases protoss already spends up to 1500 minerals not countiing pylons on cannons alone just to slow down zergling run by attacks. They also spend 300-600 minerals in the early game against terran just in case terran does medivac play and later on spend 300-450 minerals on cannons per base to slow down medivac play. This doesnt take into account pylons which will add anothr 200-300 per base except in PvZ where it will sometimes be an extra 400-500 per base on pylons alone.
So when protoss already has to use up 2000 or more minerals on cannons alone I have no idea why making turrets is such a big deal. Do you really expect that zerg spending 3000/3000 on his army should be stoppable by 300 minerals worth of turrets?
On October 16 2013 05:01 Thieving Magpie wrote: Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
lots of mutas will snipe a couple of turrets much faster than a group of marines, and as each turret dies the DPS against the mutas instantly plummets. with marines you have to kill every marine essentially one by one which gives the marines more time to deal their dps before it disappears, and it's also more difficult for the zerg to judge how many muta he'll lose from the engagement, especially since marines can focus them
On October 16 2013 02:25 rikter wrote: I saw this mentioned a few pages back in discussing mutalisks, and as a T player what I would like to see is the turret upgrade from WoL campaign, the one where the turrets do aoe damage. This would help against the big muta balls. The mutas are so mobile that it gets ridiculous to defend against them once they hit their giant flock because the turrets as is do nothing unless you ridiculously overspend on them. Zerg and toss can shut down our mobile harass with relatively few units.
Can't you just use 3+ mines instead of turrets for larger groups of mutalisks? They can snipe one mine easily, but not multiple mines.
Best case scenario is that two mines hit, which means you now got a flock of mutalisks - 2 in your base. With the range they have you need at least 3 groups in your main, and two per expansions. On 3 bases that is 42 supply gone. And they can probably just snipe all 3 mines without losing anything.
On October 16 2013 01:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 16 2013 01:10 Lorch wrote:
On October 16 2013 00:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 15 2013 23:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Complaining about sc2 muta counterattack seems silly when I still walls I turrets in the dozens were used in BW in all matchups. Sometimes the answer is to make 10-20 turrets in your main and natural: at least that's how BW responded to flocks of 11 mutalisks.
Terrans are already those who by far make most static defense in the normal game. Turret walls are often enough made. I never see a photon-cannon wall. Only extremely late game you get silly stuff like zergs changing all their drones into spines.
But what do you achieve by making 10 turrets in your main? 10 turrets spread out over your entire main do not stop a 20-30 muta flock. They just snipe them one at a time. 10 turrets clumped together probably does stop it. So now you need to invest thousands upon thousands of minerals in purely static defense, while the zerg can happily expand and kill you later.
Just talking what the response to 11 mutalisks was in BW
Flash would actually never stop making turrets with 1-3 SCVs building turrets throughout the game if Zerg went muta. He also did the same in TvT and TvP to prepare for late game Doom drops and arbiters.
But sure, 10-20 turrets vs 11 mutas is okay in BW but too expensive for SC2, no prob.
Lets just ignore the fact that its a totally different game with completly different economics, units, costs, production times etc. pp. I don't even see the issue here, muta counter attacks are fine, 99% of t complaining in this thread are just way too bad at the game anyways.
Im not disagreeing. But WoL days we had the practice of 4-6 turrets in the main supported by a Thor. Now people complain that they have to make 3 or more turrets.
Protoss regularly make 2 cannons at expansions at the cost of 300 minerals not counting the pylon. Protoss get their thirds by making 4 pylons surrounding a cannon at 550 mineral investment. But make 5 turrets in the main and 5 turrets in the nat or just 10 turrets in the main and its suddenly spending too much?
I'm not saying its good or bad, but it just boggles me that people will complain about a counterattack that literally is the only counterattack turrets can actually fight.
Sounds just like early WoL zergs who whined that they make no units in the first 10 minutes and complain when they died because of it.
No one complains you have to make 3 or more turrets. 3 or more turrets however don't do shit against mutalisk flocks. Sure if it is just delaying them a bit once and then you going on the offensive again some turrets help. But if you cannot be continiously attacking anymore then they have to do more than delay the mutas slightly, especially since there is nothing stopping the zerg from getting 20+ mutas.
In WoL days you were happy if your thor got of one or two shots on clumped up mutas, that was considered a win. In HotS no one cares since they regen it anyway. So 4-6 turrets + a thor is not going to save your ass, they just get more and more since they have their regen, and when they got enough they magic box the thor.
And then you say it is weird that people complain about a counterattack (why only counterattack and not regular attack? Or harrasment?) that the turret can fight? Lets say we make photon cannon only able to shoot zerglings. For 1 damage per shot, with current ROF. Then because photon cannons can only shoot zerglings protoss should be fine against zerglings?
Compared to WoL mutas got significantly more speed and regen. On the counter department terran got WMs. Which aren't that useful against their harrasment, but they allow an agressive playstyle. Now they want to nerf widow mines into the ground. Is it then really strange that WoL tactics won't cut it against mutas? Add a whole other bunch of nerfs to siege tank play against zerg (vipers, swarmhosts, ultralisks), and it suddenly makes sense why 10% ROF increase doesn't cut it...
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
Currently Protoss make 1-3 cannons at their front against zerg, 1-2 cannons in their main and natural against terran and 2-4 cannons per expansion vs either race.
At 3 bases protoss already spends up to 1500 minerals not countiing pylons on cannons alone just to slow down zergling run by attacks. They also spend 300-600 minerals in the early game against terran just in case terran does medivac play and later on spend 300-450 minerals on cannons per base to slow down medivac play. This doesnt take into account pylons which will add anothr 200-300 per base except in PvZ where it will sometimes be an extra 400-500 per base on pylons alone.
So when protoss already has to use up 2000 or more minerals on cannons alone I have no idea why making turrets is such a big deal. Do you really expect that zerg spending 3000/3000 on his army should be stoppable by 300 minerals worth of turrets?
Are you really serious?
First of all I don't see many toss making 3 turrets at their front, except in unusual situations, all-in defense for example. But not in a regular game.
I am mainly surprised you act like toss spend more on static defense than terran. While terrans making turret rings is alot more normal to see than toss making cannon rings. And sure turrets are more effective than marines vs mutas, if they decide to attack into it. The problem is every sub-location you need to defend needs enough turrets to handle the entire muta flock. So in total you need to be able to kill the muta flock 10 times.
Looking at your last paragraph I can only conclude you are trolling. No one says you should stop it with 300 mineral, that is all from your fantasy. The issue is the amount of minerals you need to sink in turrets to make sure you are reasonably protected against mutas means you cannot do any agression. Which means the zerg is happily expanding and going for hive, and you die.
Btw if you want to look at who spends more on static defense, a planetary + two turrets is standard against toss just to have detection vs DTs. You should calculate how much PFs cost: Hint, alot.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Oh, please. You are totally out of touch with being unbiased. The graduated damage output of the WM is brilliant/innovative. It rewards micro (moving farther from range) without strongly negating base damage.
Plus, it's a test map. If it's terribly, they'll change it.
@Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed.
Now @Thieving Magpie
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
Edit: I see this might be meant different, so lets summarize it only: Missile turrets do roughly the same dps as (upgraded) marines per cost. They do have more range, health and are repairable. But they cannot move. So putting down 2 missile turrets does the same as 4 marines. How scared exactly would you be of 4 marines with your 20 mutas? Let me guess: Not really.
On October 16 2013 05:18 Sissors wrote: @Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed.
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
Edit: I see this might be meant different, so lets summarize it only: Missile turrets do roughly the same dps as (upgraded) marines per cost. They do have more range, health and are repairable. But they cannot move. So putting down 2 missile turrets does the same as 4 marines. How scared exactly would you be of 4 marines with your 20 mutas? Let me guess: Not really.
Maybe the best defense is Turrets + WM + Thor
WM forces muta to stack to snipe them Thor do insane AOE damages to clumped muta Turrets do just enough DPS to kill the remaining low hp mutalisks
On October 16 2013 05:18 Sissors wrote: @Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed.
Now @Thieving Magpie
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
Edit: I see this might be meant different, so lets summarize it only: Missile turrets do roughly the same dps as (upgraded) marines per cost. They do have more range, health and are repairable. But they cannot move. So putting down 2 missile turrets does the same as 4 marines. How scared exactly would you be of 4 marines with your 20 mutas? Let me guess: Not really.
Maybe the best defense is Turrets + WM + Thor
WM forces muta to stack to snipe them Thor do insane AOE damages to clumped muta Turrets do just enough DPS to kill the remaining low hp mutalisks
: )
And then the zerg realizes you have 10 to 20 supply in your base trying to defend against mutas, and moves them back to help his main army annihilate the terran army, yeah, brilliant idea!
On October 16 2013 05:18 Sissors wrote: @Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed.
Now @Thieving Magpie
Except turrets deal 20 damage a shot at the attack speed of stimmed marines. They deal 10 stimmed marine damage per 50 minerals spent on them and hence do better than marines at hurting Mutalisks
Edit: I see this might be meant different, so lets summarize it only: Missile turrets do roughly the same dps as (upgraded) marines per cost. They do have more range, health and are repairable. But they cannot move. So putting down 2 missile turrets does the same as 4 marines. How scared exactly would you be of 4 marines with your 20 mutas? Let me guess: Not really.
Maybe the best defense is Turrets + WM + Thor
WM forces muta to stack to snipe them Thor do insane AOE damages to clumped muta Turrets do just enough DPS to kill the remaining low hp mutalisks
1 Missile turret has the DPS of 4 Marines (12x2@.86 attack speed vs 6@.86 attack speed), and has 6x the hitpoints (45 vs 250).
2 Missile turrets is equivalent to 8 marines in bunkers
4 Missile turrets is equivalent to leaving 16 marines at home.
10 missile turrets is the same as leaving 40 marines at home at 1/4 the cost
Don't blame me, blame math. 30+ Mutas will snipe 1 Turret but the other 9 will shred them as well as marines do from longer range. The turrets will lose dps slower and will retain max damage longer due to longer range and higher hitpoints.
Marines only roflstomp Mutalisks because of medivac heals. Otherwise marines will die faster than turrets.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Oh, please. You are totally out of touch with being unbiased. The graduated damage output of the WM is brilliant/innovative. It rewards micro (moving farther from range) without strongly negating base damage.
Plus, it's a test map. If it's terribly, they'll change it.
Even if it was, I wouldn't care. The only thought-worthy question is: is this change necessary balance-wise? And the answer is no. Zergs are not struggling at all anymore in the match-up, so weakening Terran's main strategy is completely absurd. And if, after 3 years, they suddenly woke up to discover that Tank-based play is interesting and would be a better norm, they're massively deluded if they think -0.3 attack speed will do the trick.
Make Siege Tank attack speed 2.5 and remove armored tag from Marauder, that way Marine Marauder Medivac will have chance vs Mech as tanks won't do +15vs armored damage. Not sure if this would work but just some ideas.
Half of top 16 WCS is Terran. Top 3 TLPD Elo is Terran. 6 out of top 10 in Aligulac is Terran. 4 out of 5 most recent Premiere event winners are Terran.
After half a year Blizzard finally considers a minor nerf to mines, which has already been scaled back twice before even going live, and compensated with a buff to boot. The whole thread is people crying about Mutalisks.
I am pretty sure blizzard change widow mine because of balance, but because of how boring TvZ (TvP is pretty bad too...)is right now. I have not played this game for a year already, but I still watch games all the time. The problem with TvZ right now is that you know what is going to happen right from the beginning of the game, 3cc into parade push and either the zerg defend it or he dies. Yes, it is very action packed and has a lot awesome (and awful) moments, but it feels like the game is stuck at the bio mine phase and there isn't any transition after that.
With tanks, which have obvious strengths and weaknesses unlike the mine, makes the game a lot more fun too watch. I know it is frustrating to carefully positioning all your tanks and avoid getting catch unseige, but it is definitely fun to watch. Unlike mine base TvZ right now, tanks will bring a sense of progression to the match up because of its weaknesses. You will see mutas trying to pick off the tanks while marines trying to fend off the mutas; you will also see thors added in if their muta flock gets too large. Also with the obvious weakness of tanks in vipers and broodlords, we will see terrans adding in vikings to their compositions. Hell, air transition for terran might even be an option if the game drags on for too long.
The more units that showed up in the match up, the better it is for the viewers especially when the appearance of these units represents a new phase of the game. For example, the viewers will get excited when they see vipers showing up, which signifies the zerg counterattack phase. They will also get excited if they see the terran trying to transit to ravens when the zerg is building up his broodlord flocks. Seeing these units simply tell you that the game is in a new phase, which keeps people's attention because they know new things are going to happen.
If the mine nerf makes TvZ unbalance, then nerf the mutas and blinding cloud to make the match up balance again (it is not like zergs are depending on muta and blinding cloud to have any chance in other match ups). TvZ as of now is extremely boring and one dimensional, and the mine nerf is the first step in the right direction. By the way, I really like the idea that transformation servos reduces the siege time of tanks.
tldr; mines are kiling starcraft, tanks are cool to watch because of its weaknesses, nerf muta and blinding clouds if TvZ becomes imba.
On October 15 2013 02:35 TheDwf wrote: Still completely out of touch with the real world, weakening Mines without anything substantial to compensate when TvZ is already becoming Zerg-favored.
Its a change on a test map. If the nerf is not needed then it wont go live like all the other stuff that didnt go live. Do people not understand what test means?
On October 16 2013 06:42 sitromit wrote: Half of top 16 WCS is Terran. Top 3 TLPD Elo is Terran. 6 out of top 10 in Aligulac is Terran. 4 out of 5 most recent Premiere event winners are Terran.
As usual people can't see the forest for the trees. Half of Blizzcon will be Terran, yes, but how is that relevant to what happens now when some of the points were scored long ago, either before the Hellbat nerf or simply before Protoss and Zerg developed their play against Terran? Quoting TLPD/Aligulac is hilarious considering such ratings regularly deliver aberrations such as HeroMarine being above Flash or LucifroN rated higher than Soulkey. Tournament winners say nothing; Terran was under-represented in WCS Europe in the RO8, and still the only Terran who made it there won. There were more top level Terrans in Dreamhack Bucharest, just like the Zerg line-up was stronger recently at IEM, etc.
Now, since you seem to like this subject of Terran representation, how about the following questions? How many Terrans reached RO8 in Premier League this season? How many Terrans qualified in Challenger League this season? How many GM Terrans worldwide? How many Terrans in Master? Upon answering such things, you may discover that as usual, it's a small group of elite players still doing well (but for how long?) rather than the Terran race being successful as a whole.
On October 16 2013 07:09 havok55 wrote: Its a change on a test map. If the nerf is not needed then it wont go live like all the other stuff that didnt go live. Do people not understand what test means?
If the nerf is not needed, then why are they even testing it? And what makes you think that they will take the right decision anyway? Do people need to remind you how WoL ended?
Encouraging Terran to build Turrets is just a ridiculous thing.. Can't believe that people are having discussions upon it..
First of all - say that Terran starts it's push.. There's a good chance that a group of Lings will see the "pushout" on time, ..
Then you start making a few Spines at the nat/3rd area, or at least at the 3rd.. (making sure you inject larvae is the hard part though ), then AGAIN - you send in few more lings - or maybe an overlord/overseer - to confirm that the push is comming.. Then you start making some Banelings..
And when the push finally arrives - you'll probably have like at least 70% done defences and have to buy just a little more time (usually done with the Queens), or if the map is big enough or it's a cross-spawn - then they're probably done already..
========================================================================== With Terran - that's just impossible - if Zerg pushes out - it will arrive in your base in like 10-15 seconds.. That's hardly any time to make your defences work properly.. Maybe you'd have time to raise some depots, start building some wall-off extra buildings and start rallying some of your army back home.. And even if you see it on time - Zerg might just Baneling-bust the whole thing and supply-block you nasty..
So there's a CORE difference.. Turrets just can't be built.. You have to pre-plan them.. And when we see some extra Terran player have the Thors and/or Turrets right on time - then that's because of "zillion games played experiences", and not because of a simple scouting-info within the game..
You can't build the Turrets on time REACTIVELY, which is the core difference of "smart investing" in static defense vs playing a tower-defense game..
On October 16 2013 06:42 sitromit wrote: Half of top 16 WCS is Terran. Top 3 TLPD Elo is Terran. 6 out of top 10 in Aligulac is Terran. 4 out of 5 most recent Premiere event winners are Terran.
As usual people can't see the forest for the trees. Half of Blizzcon will be Terran, yes, but how is that relevant to what happens now when some of the points were scored long ago, either before the Hellbat nerf or simply before Protoss and Zerg developed their play against Terran? Quoting TLPD/Aligulac is hilarious considering such ratings regularly deliver aberrations such as HeroMarine being above Flash or LucifroN rated higher than Soulkey. Tournament winners say nothing; Terran was under-represented in WCS Europe in the RO8, and still the only Terran who made it there won. There were more top level Terrans in Dreamhack Bucharest, just like the Zerg line-up was stronger recently at IEM, etc.
Now, since you seem to like this subject of Terran representation, how about the following questions? How many Terrans reached RO8 in Premier League this season? How many Terrans qualified in Challenger League this season? How many GM Terrans worldwide? How many Terrans in Master? Upon answering such things, you may discover that as usual, it's a small group of elite players still doing well (but for how long?) rather than the Terran race being successful as a whole.
On October 16 2013 07:09 havok55 wrote: Its a change on a test map. If the nerf is not needed then it wont go live like all the other stuff that didnt go live. Do people not understand what test means?
If the nerf is not needed, then why are they even testing it? And what makes you think that they will take the right decision anyway? Do people need to remind you how WoL ended?
Terran didn't dominate 1 season? Oh my god, sound the alarm bells!!!!!! I propose buffs across the board!
Meanwhile in the real world, Bio Mine is more than fine, as Gumiho quite aptly demonstrated yesterday, against a Zerg who managed to reach Hive and Ultralisks, with a large flock of Mutalisks.
On October 16 2013 07:40 VArsovskiSC wrote: Encouraging Terran to build Turrets is just a ridiculous thing.. Can't believe that people are having discussions upon it..
First of all - say that Terran starts it's push.. There's a good chance that a group of Lings will see the "pushout" on time, ..
Then you start making a few Spines at the nat/3rd area, or at least at the 3rd.. (making sure you inject larvae is the hard part though ), then AGAIN - you send in few more lings - or maybe an overlord/overseer - to confirm that the push is comming.. Then you start making some Banelings..
And when the push finally arrives - you'll probably have like at least 70% done defences and have to buy just a little more time (usually done with the Queens), or if the map is big enough or it's a cross-spawn - then they're probably done already..
========================================================================== With Terran - that's just impossible - if Zerg pushes out - it will arrive in your base in like 10-15 seconds.. That's hardly any time to make your defences work properly.. Maybe you'd have time to raise some depots, start building some wall-off extra buildings and start rallying some of your army back home.. And even if you see it on time - Zerg might just Baneling-bust the whole thing and supply-block you nasty..
So there's a CORE difference.. Turrets just can't be built.. You have to pre-plan them.. And when we see some extra Terran player have the Thors and/or Turrets right on time - then that's because of "zillion games played experiences", and not because of a simple scouting-info within the game..
You can't build the Turrets on time REACTIVELY, which is the core difference of "smart investing" in static defense vs playing a tower-defense game..
And even in those you have to "see" the wave..
Or you make 1-2 every two minutes or so and have 5-10 by the 15 minute mark and your opponent doesn't even go Muta because wtf there's turrets...
You don't have to make turrets 10 at a time. 1 building a turret every other depot or so does it as well.
On October 16 2013 07:40 VArsovskiSC wrote: Encouraging Terran to build Turrets is just a ridiculous thing.. Can't believe that people are having discussions upon it..
First of all - say that Terran starts it's push.. There's a good chance that a group of Lings will see the "pushout" on time, ..
Then you start making a few Spines at the nat/3rd area, or at least at the 3rd.. (making sure you inject larvae is the hard part though ), then AGAIN - you send in few more lings - or maybe an overlord/overseer - to confirm that the push is comming.. Then you start making some Banelings..
And when the push finally arrives - you'll probably have like at least 70% done defences and have to buy just a little more time (usually done with the Queens), or if the map is big enough or it's a cross-spawn - then they're probably done already..
========================================================================== With Terran - that's just impossible - if Zerg pushes out - it will arrive in your base in like 10-15 seconds.. That's hardly any time to make your defences work properly.. Maybe you'd have time to raise some depots, start building some wall-off extra buildings and start rallying some of your army back home.. And even if you see it on time - Zerg might just Baneling-bust the whole thing and supply-block you nasty..
So there's a CORE difference.. Turrets just can't be built.. You have to pre-plan them.. And when we see some extra Terran player have the Thors and/or Turrets right on time - then that's because of "zillion games played experiences", and not because of a simple scouting-info within the game..
You can't build the Turrets on time REACTIVELY, which is the core difference of "smart investing" in static defense vs playing a tower-defense game..
And even in those you have to "see" the wave..
Or you make 1-2 every two minutes or so and have 5-10 by the 15 minute mark and your opponent doesn't even go Muta because wtf there's turrets...
You don't have to make turrets 10 at a time. 1 building a turret every other depot or so does it as well.
On October 16 2013 07:40 VArsovskiSC wrote: Encouraging Terran to build Turrets is just a ridiculous thing.. Can't believe that people are having discussions upon it..
First of all - say that Terran starts it's push.. There's a good chance that a group of Lings will see the "pushout" on time, ..
Then you start making a few Spines at the nat/3rd area, or at least at the 3rd.. (making sure you inject larvae is the hard part though ), then AGAIN - you send in few more lings - or maybe an overlord/overseer - to confirm that the push is comming.. Then you start making some Banelings..
And when the push finally arrives - you'll probably have like at least 70% done defences and have to buy just a little more time (usually done with the Queens), or if the map is big enough or it's a cross-spawn - then they're probably done already..
========================================================================== With Terran - that's just impossible - if Zerg pushes out - it will arrive in your base in like 10-15 seconds.. That's hardly any time to make your defences work properly.. Maybe you'd have time to raise some depots, start building some wall-off extra buildings and start rallying some of your army back home.. And even if you see it on time - Zerg might just Baneling-bust the whole thing and supply-block you nasty..
So there's a CORE difference.. Turrets just can't be built.. You have to pre-plan them.. And when we see some extra Terran player have the Thors and/or Turrets right on time - then that's because of "zillion games played experiences", and not because of a simple scouting-info within the game..
You can't build the Turrets on time REACTIVELY, which is the core difference of "smart investing" in static defense vs playing a tower-defense game..
And even in those you have to "see" the wave..
Or you make 1-2 every two minutes or so and have 5-10 by the 15 minute mark and your opponent doesn't even go Muta because wtf there's turrets...
You don't have to make turrets 10 at a time. 1 building a turret every other depot or so does it as well.
And if the Zerg never makes Mutalisks ?
It's simple. No muta? He dies to drop play. He has muta? They run into turrets. He decideds to turtle and you see him make a tonne of non-muta gas units? Get expansions as he has no map control.
On October 16 2013 07:40 VArsovskiSC wrote: Encouraging Terran to build Turrets is just a ridiculous thing.. Can't believe that people are having discussions upon it..
First of all - say that Terran starts it's push.. There's a good chance that a group of Lings will see the "pushout" on time, ..
Then you start making a few Spines at the nat/3rd area, or at least at the 3rd.. (making sure you inject larvae is the hard part though ), then AGAIN - you send in few more lings - or maybe an overlord/overseer - to confirm that the push is comming.. Then you start making some Banelings..
And when the push finally arrives - you'll probably have like at least 70% done defences and have to buy just a little more time (usually done with the Queens), or if the map is big enough or it's a cross-spawn - then they're probably done already..
========================================================================== With Terran - that's just impossible - if Zerg pushes out - it will arrive in your base in like 10-15 seconds.. That's hardly any time to make your defences work properly.. Maybe you'd have time to raise some depots, start building some wall-off extra buildings and start rallying some of your army back home.. And even if you see it on time - Zerg might just Baneling-bust the whole thing and supply-block you nasty..
So there's a CORE difference.. Turrets just can't be built.. You have to pre-plan them.. And when we see some extra Terran player have the Thors and/or Turrets right on time - then that's because of "zillion games played experiences", and not because of a simple scouting-info within the game..
You can't build the Turrets on time REACTIVELY, which is the core difference of "smart investing" in static defense vs playing a tower-defense game..
And even in those you have to "see" the wave..
Or you make 1-2 every two minutes or so and have 5-10 by the 15 minute mark and your opponent doesn't even go Muta because wtf there's turrets...
You don't have to make turrets 10 at a time. 1 building a turret every other depot or so does it as well.
And if the Zerg never makes Mutalisks ?
That's an auto win for T with decent number of medivac preserved.
On October 16 2013 07:40 VArsovskiSC wrote: Encouraging Terran to build Turrets is just a ridiculous thing.. Can't believe that people are having discussions upon it..
First of all - say that Terran starts it's push.. There's a good chance that a group of Lings will see the "pushout" on time, ..
Then you start making a few Spines at the nat/3rd area, or at least at the 3rd.. (making sure you inject larvae is the hard part though ), then AGAIN - you send in few more lings - or maybe an overlord/overseer - to confirm that the push is comming.. Then you start making some Banelings..
And when the push finally arrives - you'll probably have like at least 70% done defences and have to buy just a little more time (usually done with the Queens), or if the map is big enough or it's a cross-spawn - then they're probably done already..
========================================================================== With Terran - that's just impossible - if Zerg pushes out - it will arrive in your base in like 10-15 seconds.. That's hardly any time to make your defences work properly.. Maybe you'd have time to raise some depots, start building some wall-off extra buildings and start rallying some of your army back home.. And even if you see it on time - Zerg might just Baneling-bust the whole thing and supply-block you nasty..
So there's a CORE difference.. Turrets just can't be built.. You have to pre-plan them.. And when we see some extra Terran player have the Thors and/or Turrets right on time - then that's because of "zillion games played experiences", and not because of a simple scouting-info within the game..
You can't build the Turrets on time REACTIVELY, which is the core difference of "smart investing" in static defense vs playing a tower-defense game..
And even in those you have to "see" the wave..
Or you make 1-2 every two minutes or so and have 5-10 by the 15 minute mark and your opponent doesn't even go Muta because wtf there's turrets...
You don't have to make turrets 10 at a time. 1 building a turret every other depot or so does it as well.
And if the Zerg never makes Mutalisks ?
In what league do Zerg's not make Mutas vs Bio/Mine?
On October 16 2013 07:40 VArsovskiSC wrote: Encouraging Terran to build Turrets is just a ridiculous thing.. Can't believe that people are having discussions upon it..
First of all - say that Terran starts it's push.. There's a good chance that a group of Lings will see the "pushout" on time, ..
Then you start making a few Spines at the nat/3rd area, or at least at the 3rd.. (making sure you inject larvae is the hard part though ), then AGAIN - you send in few more lings - or maybe an overlord/overseer - to confirm that the push is comming.. Then you start making some Banelings..
And when the push finally arrives - you'll probably have like at least 70% done defences and have to buy just a little more time (usually done with the Queens), or if the map is big enough or it's a cross-spawn - then they're probably done already..
========================================================================== With Terran - that's just impossible - if Zerg pushes out - it will arrive in your base in like 10-15 seconds.. That's hardly any time to make your defences work properly.. Maybe you'd have time to raise some depots, start building some wall-off extra buildings and start rallying some of your army back home.. And even if you see it on time - Zerg might just Baneling-bust the whole thing and supply-block you nasty..
So there's a CORE difference.. Turrets just can't be built.. You have to pre-plan them.. And when we see some extra Terran player have the Thors and/or Turrets right on time - then that's because of "zillion games played experiences", and not because of a simple scouting-info within the game..
You can't build the Turrets on time REACTIVELY, which is the core difference of "smart investing" in static defense vs playing a tower-defense game..
And even in those you have to "see" the wave..
Or you make 1-2 every two minutes or so and have 5-10 by the 15 minute mark and your opponent doesn't even go Muta because wtf there's turrets...
You don't have to make turrets 10 at a time. 1 building a turret every other depot or so does it as well.
And if the Zerg never makes Mutalisks ?
In what league do Zerg's not make Mutas vs Bio/Mine?
Probably the "wood" league.. Oh - forgot - Curious and Dimaga are in it..
Some people misunderstand, i dont mind making turrets, and at around 1030 i sprinkle a few to deny the initial muta flock. But beyond that, as his flock grows you MUST build marines and get out on the map, because if you plunk down the mins to get enough turrets to hold you wreck your army so hard z can just bust you down with lings.
Since we are discussing what it costs to defend a base vs mobile harass in tvz, consider: Z can seriously cripple drops of less than 3 medis with 3 spores per base for 375 mins and the near instant response of zerglings. Add a single spine to bring the cost of static d to 575 per base. Drops of more than 3 medis are dicey with mutas out, you can only do it if the mutas are in your base, because you cant be out on the map vs a flock with that much army in medivacs. Plus, that overlord spread, or burrowed ling, or creep. Even if i do damage, those spores mean Im not likely to preserve many units.
T needs so many more turrets and static d because the units cant respond as fast, and the fast response involves my units damaging themselves, and the mutas are faster than my whole army so they just run away, and they regen so fast that that your units will wear down long before his does.
The only two options are to A) Go mech, turtle for your big pushout, and hope the other guy hasnt heard of blinding cloud or B) nonstop marine mine rally across the map to keep his flock low and keep them out of your base. Option B is very demanding.
If you had turrets that could scale in quality instead of quantity to deal with mutas it might open the matchup more, because you could provide a more robust defense without blowing all your cash on static d, and get out on the map more with slower compositions. Imagine it: the slow bio pushout, supported by mines and turrets... We might actually see broodlords come back as a response.
I really hope they buff the tank more...I really liked doing bio mech vs zerg, but tanks are still just too expensive and mines do so much better =/...Blinding cloud is still gonna be amazing vs mech.
Tank range upgrade on the fusion core ! Opponents siege weapons can fly, give us atleast the range advantage. Hope the combined upgrades go through, will allow easy access to BCs if you Mech.
On October 16 2013 05:18 Sissors wrote: @Till, regardless if you are in favour or against it, calling making the damage profile of a WM brilliant is kinda stretching it, considering how often it already was proposed.
A million things have been proposed. This is an interesting, and relatively unique solution, allowing WM to not be so insanely efficient or do almost nothing based on a few milliseconds of reaction time.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Weird negativity in here, but it is the Starcraft 2 community so what else can be expected? Making things stronger or weaker without changing the overall feel of the game much is a good approach to improving balance for a highly competitive esport. Would it be better for Blizzard to turn the matchup on its head?
Also you'd better have been playing the test map to make a statement like the one you did.
Have a look at championship brackets at different tournaments: GSL: Soulkey vs Rain: 3:0 soO vs Parting: 3:1 IEM: HerO vs Life: 0:3 sOs vs Curious: 2:3 Life vs NaNiwa: 4:2 WCS Season 2: Jaedong vs NaNiwa: 3:1 First vs Jaedong: 0:3
Sorry, but as you can see Protos players can win a tournament, only if they somehow avoid playing Zergs. And I will repeat my question, why Blizzard is not going to improve this matchup?
I myself build somewhere between 20-30 Turrets every game if it goes past 3 bases.. Doesn't seem strange to me. But I play mech, so I have some floating minerals. You have to build those Turrets. You only really have to play solid opponents who abuses your lack of defense so many times before you start spamming them as a mad man.
Well im not a pro player but i think that a Tank Buff would not help Terrans much. Ling/Baneling Muta is like maximum mobility and harass. Nonstop Marine/Widowmine pressure seems like the only way to prevent at least some Muta harass keeping the Zerg busy. Somehow got the feeling that ppl tend to forget that Widowmines are a two-edged-sword, a slight mistake in positioning and they blow up parts of the Terran army aswell. If Mines need to get nerfed , Terrans need something very mobile that can put up a fight against Ling/Baneling Muta ... Tanks just wont work i guess. Stationary def. isnt a very good option to prevent Muta harass after they reached a critical mass. But as i said ... preventing that harass and pressure/critical mass today is archived by using a very mobile Marine/Widowmine army. Nerfing that composition will leave a gap that Mechplay or additional Tanks can not fill. My idea would be --> to give Hellions (after Blue Flame research wich should be more expensive then) the splash-flame-style of Hellbats. So you could get a very mobile but fragile splashdamage addition to your army that requires good positioning and being vurnerable to Mutas , so you still should have Marines and nerfed Windowmines in your Army.
On October 16 2013 17:10 Everlong wrote: I myself build somewhere between 20-30 Turrets every game if it goes past 3 bases.. Doesn't seem strange to me. But I play mech, so I have some floating minerals. You have to build those Turrets. You only really have to play solid opponents who abuses your lack of defense so many times before you start spamming them as a mad man.
Well that's not really comparable though. I'd argue as mech it's pretty much auto win if a zerg goes mutas since he can't actually tech switch in time for your push. Also if he does go mutas he's not constantly making them, as soon as he sees you're meching he is tech switching out of them, leaving you with like 10-14 mutas to deal with. Turret spam is more often than not against drops.
On October 16 2013 17:23 FuKcYeAh wrote: Well im not a pro player but i think that a Tank Buff would not help Terrans much. Ling/Baneling Muta is like maximum mobility and harass. Nonstop Marine/Widowmine pressure seems like the only way to prevent at least some Muta harass keeping the Zerg busy. Somehow got the feeling that ppl tend to forget that Widowmines are a two-edged-sword, a slight mistake in positioning and they blow up parts of the Terran army aswell. If Mines need to get nerfed , Terrans need something very mobile that can put up a fight against Ling/Baneling Muta ... Tanks just wont work i guess. Stationary def. isnt a very good option to prevent Muta harass after they reached a critical mass. But as i said ... preventing that harass and pressure/critical mass today is archived by using a very mobile Marine/Widowmine army. Nerfing that composition will leave a gap that Mechplay or additional Tanks can not fill. My idea would be --> to give Hellions (after Blue Flame research wich should be more expensive then) the splash-flame-style of Hellbats. So you could get a very mobile but fragile splashdamage addition to your army that requires good positioning and being vurnerable to Mutas , so you still should have Marines and nerfed Windowmines in your Army.
I honestly have no idea how they can buff bio mech in TvZ, but I'd argue hellions don't really need any kind of buff. If they change blinding cloud in the way numerous people have suggested, I think mech will be fine in TvZ. I think buffing thors AA(so you can include 1-2 in bio mech combo) vs mutas is pretty hard to do since they scale pretty well against mutas(so basically they'd likelt be way to strong in mech vs mutas). I don't really think there's any way to actually buff tanks vs hots mutas in bio mech, so yeah... I think it needs to be either 4M or mech and stop dreaming of bio mech TvZ(which I'd so love to see again, by far most interesting playstyle imo).
On October 16 2013 17:23 FuKcYeAh wrote: Well im not a pro player but i think that a Tank Buff would not help Terrans much. Ling/Baneling Muta is like maximum mobility and harass. Nonstop Marine/Widowmine pressure seems like the only way to prevent at least some Muta harass keeping the Zerg busy. Somehow got the feeling that ppl tend to forget that Widowmines are a two-edged-sword, a slight mistake in positioning and they blow up parts of the Terran army aswell. If Mines need to get nerfed , Terrans need something very mobile that can put up a fight against Ling/Baneling Muta ... Tanks just wont work i guess. Stationary def. isnt a very good option to prevent Muta harass after they reached a critical mass. But as i said ... preventing that harass and pressure/critical mass today is archived by using a very mobile Marine/Widowmine army. Nerfing that composition will leave a gap that Mechplay or additional Tanks can not fill. My idea would be --> to give Hellions (after Blue Flame research wich should be more expensive then) the splash-flame-style of Hellbats. So you could get a very mobile but fragile splashdamage addition to your army that requires good positioning and being vurnerable to Mutas , so you still should have Marines and nerfed Windowmines in your Army.
WMs would be extremely useful against muta, even with this nerf. Because u need stack muta to kill WMs. Also, many of my opponents found a good way to add thors to help with stacked mutas - this composition did pretty well vs me.
On October 16 2013 17:26 wishr wrote: WMs would be extremely useful against muta, even with this nerf. Because u need stack muta to kill WMs. Also, many of my opponents found a good way to add thors to help with stacked mutas - this composition did pretty well vs me.
But Thors are not very mobile and i really think mobility is the critical point in the TvZ matchup.
On October 16 2013 17:26 wishr wrote: WMs would be extremely useful against muta, even with this nerf. Because u need stack muta to kill WMs. Also, many of my opponents found a good way to add thors to help with stacked mutas - this composition did pretty well vs me.
But Thors are not very mobile and i really think mobility is the critical point in the TvZ matchup.
This. Its also part of the reason why tanks suck (even if they get +10% attack speed) in this matchup.
On October 16 2013 17:10 Everlong wrote: I myself build somewhere between 20-30 Turrets every game if it goes past 3 bases.. Doesn't seem strange to me. But I play mech, so I have some floating minerals. You have to build those Turrets. You only really have to play solid opponents who abuses your lack of defense so many times before you start spamming them as a mad man.
Well that's not really comparable though. I'd argue as mech it's pretty much auto win if a zerg goes mutas since he can't actually tech switch in time for your push. Also if he does go mutas he's not constantly making them, as soon as he sees you're meching he is tech switching out of them, leaving you with like 10-14 mutas to deal with. Turret spam is more often than not against drops.
Mutas vs Mech is not aut win for Terran player if properly controlled by decent Zerg player. We can elaborate on this if you want.
Strong Turret rings works as key protection for mech whole game. It starts with basic mineral line defense, then protects your production and edges to deny Mutas sniping anything. Then it of course works as anti-drop defense, though it is not enough, you actually need Sensor Tower and split your army. Going on, it works as nydus spotter and overseer denial (often Zerg player wants to know when and if you are going for Ravens). As games goes on, it is good idea to further strenghten your Turret rings, because any form of what I mentioned already can be done with more units, or faster. Next thing is, you want strong Turret ring in case of heavy Muta switch (1 Thor popping around 5-6 Turrets is enough most of the time, 3-4 Thors popping around no Turret is not enough often). Also, good Zerg players will often bring Vipers to blind your Turrets and doom drop you, or fly Mutas in and kill everything. So you not only need good amount of Turrets, but also good spread of them and Sensor Tower to scan immediately what is going on there.. There are probably some situations I forgot to mention, but I think that is pretty much it.
On October 16 2013 17:26 wishr wrote: WMs would be extremely useful against muta, even with this nerf. Because u need stack muta to kill WMs. Also, many of my opponents found a good way to add thors to help with stacked mutas - this composition did pretty well vs me.
But Thors are not very mobile and i really think mobility is the critical point in the TvZ matchup.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
On October 16 2013 17:26 wishr wrote: WMs would be extremely useful against muta, even with this nerf. Because u need stack muta to kill WMs. Also, many of my opponents found a good way to add thors to help with stacked mutas - this composition did pretty well vs me.
But Thors are not very mobile and i really think mobility is the critical point in the TvZ matchup.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
But will nerfed Widowmines still do the job properly ?
On October 16 2013 17:10 Everlong wrote: I myself build somewhere between 20-30 Turrets every game if it goes past 3 bases.. Doesn't seem strange to me. But I play mech, so I have some floating minerals. You have to build those Turrets. You only really have to play solid opponents who abuses your lack of defense so many times before you start spamming them as a mad man.
Well that's not really comparable though. I'd argue as mech it's pretty much auto win if a zerg goes mutas since he can't actually tech switch in time for your push. Also if he does go mutas he's not constantly making them, as soon as he sees you're meching he is tech switching out of them, leaving you with like 10-14 mutas to deal with. Turret spam is more often than not against drops.
Mutas vs Mech is not aut win for Terran player if properly controlled by decent Zerg player. We can elaborate on this if you want.
Strong Turret rings works as key protection for mech whole game. It starts with basic mineral line defense, then protects your production and edges to deny Mutas sniping anything. Then it of course works as anti-drop defense, though it is not enough, you actually need Sensor Tower and split your army. Going on, it works as nydus spotter and overseer denial (often Zerg player wants to know when and if you are going for Ravens). As games goes on, it is good idea to further strenghten your Turret rings, because any form of what I mentioned already can be done with more units, or faster. Next thing is, you want strong Turret ring in case of heavy Muta switch (1 Thor popping around 5-6 Turrets is enough most of the time, 3-4 Thors popping around no Turret is not enough often). Also, good Zerg players will often bring Vipers to blind your Turrets and doom drop you, or fly Mutas in and kill everything. So you not only need good amount of Turrets, but also good spread of them and Sensor Tower to scan immediately what is going on there.. There are probably some situations I forgot to mention, but I think that is pretty much it.
Well I can only say a 3 base muta hits at like 10-11min, I push out at like 14-15 if I see mutas. I've yet to meet anyone that can stop ~3 tanks, ~5 thors and a shitton of hellbats. 2 base mutas are a bit more frustrating to deal with admittedly since they hit earlier when your infrastructure isn't really done. So yeah, I really don't see how a player can hurt you with mutas unless he catches you completely with your pants down(or you have your hellbats clumped against blings into lings massacring your tanks/thors). This is at mid-high master.
On October 16 2013 17:10 Everlong wrote: I myself build somewhere between 20-30 Turrets every game if it goes past 3 bases.. Doesn't seem strange to me. But I play mech, so I have some floating minerals. You have to build those Turrets. You only really have to play solid opponents who abuses your lack of defense so many times before you start spamming them as a mad man.
Well that's not really comparable though. I'd argue as mech it's pretty much auto win if a zerg goes mutas since he can't actually tech switch in time for your push. Also if he does go mutas he's not constantly making them, as soon as he sees you're meching he is tech switching out of them, leaving you with like 10-14 mutas to deal with. Turret spam is more often than not against drops.
Mutas vs Mech is not aut win for Terran player if properly controlled by decent Zerg player. We can elaborate on this if you want.
Strong Turret rings works as key protection for mech whole game. It starts with basic mineral line defense, then protects your production and edges to deny Mutas sniping anything. Then it of course works as anti-drop defense, though it is not enough, you actually need Sensor Tower and split your army. Going on, it works as nydus spotter and overseer denial (often Zerg player wants to know when and if you are going for Ravens). As games goes on, it is good idea to further strenghten your Turret rings, because any form of what I mentioned already can be done with more units, or faster. Next thing is, you want strong Turret ring in case of heavy Muta switch (1 Thor popping around 5-6 Turrets is enough most of the time, 3-4 Thors popping around no Turret is not enough often). Also, good Zerg players will often bring Vipers to blind your Turrets and doom drop you, or fly Mutas in and kill everything. So you not only need good amount of Turrets, but also good spread of them and Sensor Tower to scan immediately what is going on there.. There are probably some situations I forgot to mention, but I think that is pretty much it.
Well I can only say a 3 base muta hits at like 10-11min, I push out at like 14-15 if I see mutas. I've yet to meet anyone that can stop ~3 tanks, ~5 thors and a shitton of hellbats. 2 base mutas are a bit more frustrating to deal with admittedly since they hit earlier when your infrastructure isn't really done. So yeah, I really don't see how a player can hurt you with mutas unless he catches you completely with your pants down(or you have your hellbats clumped against blings into lings massacring your tanks/thors). This is at mid-high master.
Oh you are talking specifically about some kind of 2 base mech push? I've been stopped doing this many times. Do you build 3rd CC or not? Because if you don't, it is really easy for Zerg to say what you are doing. In such case, he only needs to slow your push a little bit and then overrun you with superior unit production. The best way to do this is counterattack as soon as you leave your base and snipe reinforcements with Mutas. At this point, you are pretty much allin. He could either go for your Thors, then win with Mutas, or just overpower you with Roaches, which he should have by the time he realises you are going mech.
Why isn't it recommended that units on the low ground has a chance of "miss-shot" when they are attacking units from the high ground ? Im trying to say that its similar to BW , I think there is a 1/3 chance that you might miss the target while you are attacking units from high ground while you are at the low ground .
Honestly, I think the biggest problem at the moment is PvZ and how Protoss is pretty much forced to do some 2 base allin or just die to mass mutalisks or swarm hosts.
On October 16 2013 17:26 wishr wrote: WMs would be extremely useful against muta, even with this nerf. Because u need stack muta to kill WMs. Also, many of my opponents found a good way to add thors to help with stacked mutas - this composition did pretty well vs me.
But Thors are not very mobile and i really think mobility is the critical point in the TvZ matchup.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
But will nerfed Widowmines still do the job properly ?
On October 16 2013 17:52 Psychobabas wrote: Honestly, I think the biggest problem at the moment is PvZ and how Protoss is pretty much forced to do some 2 base allin or just die to mass mutalisks or swarm hosts.
Thats plain wrong.
Watch JD stream : when he goes mass mutalisks techswitch, it's almost always a closed game. Because of his amazing muta micro, he often wins, thought. Watch Naniwa vs Life : Naniwa just destroyed Life Swarmhosts.
And the mass BL/SH/Corruptor that some EU zergs have been using are not really efficient. They are destroyed a lot of times.
On October 16 2013 17:26 wishr wrote: WMs would be extremely useful against muta, even with this nerf. Because u need stack muta to kill WMs. Also, many of my opponents found a good way to add thors to help with stacked mutas - this composition did pretty well vs me.
But Thors are not very mobile and i really think mobility is the critical point in the TvZ matchup.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
But will nerfed Widowmines still do the job properly ?
Ye, because we stack mutas.
Well , maybe it works for pure muta harass but on the open field with tons of lings banelings inbetween ? Leftover Mines or open field Mines are useless without a bunch of Marines protecting em against Muta but this is where the whole discussion about Terran mobility comes back in.
On October 16 2013 17:52 Psychobabas wrote: Honestly, I think the biggest problem at the moment is PvZ and how Protoss is pretty much forced to do some 2 base allin or just die to mass mutalisks or swarm hosts.
Am I the only one that sees 3base Protoss in most pro-PvZs? 3base air play, 3base colossus play, 3base timing attack...
Not to mention that I don't see any working swarm host play apart from Turtilon Wastes.
On October 16 2013 17:52 Psychobabas wrote: Honestly, I think the biggest problem at the moment is PvZ and how Protoss is pretty much forced to do some 2 base allin or just die to mass mutalisks or swarm hosts.
You need to look up Sora's build. A (seemingly) safe quick third, good scouting for constant search of transitions, and very very solid results vs zerg in macro games, even the strongest zergs.
I'm not saying you're going to get the same results, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. I've seen Artosis try it on stream (not that Artosis is bad or anything but I just mean he's not top world) and he was having success with it as well.
On October 16 2013 17:52 Psychobabas wrote: Honestly, I think the biggest problem at the moment is PvZ and how Protoss is pretty much forced to do some 2 base allin or just die to mass mutalisks or swarm hosts.
You need to look up Sora's build. A (seemingly) safe quick third, good scouting for constant search of transitions, and very very solid results vs zerg in macro games, even the strongest zergs.
I'm not saying you're going to get the same results, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. I've seen Artosis try it on stream (not that Artosis is bad or anything but I just mean he's not top world) and he was having success with it as well.
I second that. Not saying it's impossible to get a 3rd in PvZ but it's certainly not uncommon.
On October 16 2013 17:10 Everlong wrote: I myself build somewhere between 20-30 Turrets every game if it goes past 3 bases.. Doesn't seem strange to me. But I play mech, so I have some floating minerals. You have to build those Turrets. You only really have to play solid opponents who abuses your lack of defense so many times before you start spamming them as a mad man.
Well that's not really comparable though. I'd argue as mech it's pretty much auto win if a zerg goes mutas since he can't actually tech switch in time for your push. Also if he does go mutas he's not constantly making them, as soon as he sees you're meching he is tech switching out of them, leaving you with like 10-14 mutas to deal with. Turret spam is more often than not against drops.
Mutas vs Mech is not aut win for Terran player if properly controlled by decent Zerg player. We can elaborate on this if you want.
Strong Turret rings works as key protection for mech whole game. It starts with basic mineral line defense, then protects your production and edges to deny Mutas sniping anything. Then it of course works as anti-drop defense, though it is not enough, you actually need Sensor Tower and split your army. Going on, it works as nydus spotter and overseer denial (often Zerg player wants to know when and if you are going for Ravens). As games goes on, it is good idea to further strenghten your Turret rings, because any form of what I mentioned already can be done with more units, or faster. Next thing is, you want strong Turret ring in case of heavy Muta switch (1 Thor popping around 5-6 Turrets is enough most of the time, 3-4 Thors popping around no Turret is not enough often). Also, good Zerg players will often bring Vipers to blind your Turrets and doom drop you, or fly Mutas in and kill everything. So you not only need good amount of Turrets, but also good spread of them and Sensor Tower to scan immediately what is going on there.. There are probably some situations I forgot to mention, but I think that is pretty much it.
Well I can only say a 3 base muta hits at like 10-11min, I push out at like 14-15 if I see mutas. I've yet to meet anyone that can stop ~3 tanks, ~5 thors and a shitton of hellbats. 2 base mutas are a bit more frustrating to deal with admittedly since they hit earlier when your infrastructure isn't really done. So yeah, I really don't see how a player can hurt you with mutas unless he catches you completely with your pants down(or you have your hellbats clumped against blings into lings massacring your tanks/thors). This is at mid-high master.
Oh you are talking specifically about some kind of 2 base mech push? I've been stopped doing this many times. Do you build 3rd CC or not? Because if you don't, it is really easy for Zerg to say what you are doing. In such case, he only needs to slow your push a little bit and then overrun you with superior unit production. The best way to do this is counterattack as soon as you leave your base and snipe reinforcements with Mutas. At this point, you are pretty much allin. He could either go for your Thors, then win with Mutas, or just overpower you with Roaches, which he should have by the time he realises you are going mech.
I build a 3rd, it's not an allin but a response to seeing muta tech. The point I'm making is that roaches in enough numbers won't be out in time and without any upgrades. By the time he has the numbers to actually fight you, you are on his side of the map, usually sieged up at his 3rd killing it. If he tries to snipe your reinforcement that's fine, you just kill his 3rd and nat easier, heck when the next set of thors pops out you just pull workers and repair them and kill the mutas. Like I've said I've _never_(Edit: Nvm I remember now 2 losses when all my hellbats were clumped up and got massacred by blings) lost to someone that has opened up 3 base mutas against me going mech, thors in numbers just stomp them so hard that a wasted 1k+/1k+(along with all that time you aren't going roaches yet) you can't come back from. Ofcourse going blind mutas is moronic and doesn't happen that frequently.
The main part of my first statement does however stand on it's own, mech and bio/bio mech is so different that you can't really say "I can build shittons of turrets and be fine" since that simply doesn't work for bio/bio mech.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
this is true in theory but if your marines and your widow mines are in defensive position to stop a flock of 25-30 mutas where are your offensive units? at home ! Zerg free expo and win because you are stuck in your 3 bases to defend endless muta harass that can't be caught.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
this is true in theory but if your marines and your widow mines are in defensive position to stop a flock of 25-30 mutas where are your offensive units? at home ! Zerg free expo and win because you are stuck in your 3 bases to defend endless muta harass that can't be caught.
At that state of a match T must already have strong production, 2-3 turrets at each base, 3wms defending mineral lines and a bunch of marines with 3-3 as support defense. Also a marine-wm-medievak parade (+1-2 thors) must be heading Z bases. Also, Z cant defend without mutas, because they will die without em.
On October 16 2013 17:10 Everlong wrote: I myself build somewhere between 20-30 Turrets every game if it goes past 3 bases.. Doesn't seem strange to me. But I play mech, so I have some floating minerals. You have to build those Turrets. You only really have to play solid opponents who abuses your lack of defense so many times before you start spamming them as a mad man.
Well that's not really comparable though. I'd argue as mech it's pretty much auto win if a zerg goes mutas since he can't actually tech switch in time for your push. Also if he does go mutas he's not constantly making them, as soon as he sees you're meching he is tech switching out of them, leaving you with like 10-14 mutas to deal with. Turret spam is more often than not against drops.
Mutas vs Mech is not aut win for Terran player if properly controlled by decent Zerg player. We can elaborate on this if you want.
Strong Turret rings works as key protection for mech whole game. It starts with basic mineral line defense, then protects your production and edges to deny Mutas sniping anything. Then it of course works as anti-drop defense, though it is not enough, you actually need Sensor Tower and split your army. Going on, it works as nydus spotter and overseer denial (often Zerg player wants to know when and if you are going for Ravens). As games goes on, it is good idea to further strenghten your Turret rings, because any form of what I mentioned already can be done with more units, or faster. Next thing is, you want strong Turret ring in case of heavy Muta switch (1 Thor popping around 5-6 Turrets is enough most of the time, 3-4 Thors popping around no Turret is not enough often). Also, good Zerg players will often bring Vipers to blind your Turrets and doom drop you, or fly Mutas in and kill everything. So you not only need good amount of Turrets, but also good spread of them and Sensor Tower to scan immediately what is going on there.. There are probably some situations I forgot to mention, but I think that is pretty much it.
Well I can only say a 3 base muta hits at like 10-11min, I push out at like 14-15 if I see mutas. I've yet to meet anyone that can stop ~3 tanks, ~5 thors and a shitton of hellbats. 2 base mutas are a bit more frustrating to deal with admittedly since they hit earlier when your infrastructure isn't really done. So yeah, I really don't see how a player can hurt you with mutas unless he catches you completely with your pants down(or you have your hellbats clumped against blings into lings massacring your tanks/thors). This is at mid-high master.
Oh you are talking specifically about some kind of 2 base mech push? I've been stopped doing this many times. Do you build 3rd CC or not? Because if you don't, it is really easy for Zerg to say what you are doing. In such case, he only needs to slow your push a little bit and then overrun you with superior unit production. The best way to do this is counterattack as soon as you leave your base and snipe reinforcements with Mutas. At this point, you are pretty much allin. He could either go for your Thors, then win with Mutas, or just overpower you with Roaches, which he should have by the time he realises you are going mech.
I build a 3rd, it's not an allin but a response to seeing muta tech. The point I'm making is that roaches in enough numbers won't be out in time and without any upgrades. By the time he has the numbers to actually fight you, you are on his side of the map, usually sieged up at his 3rd killing it. If he tries to snipe your reinforcement that's fine, you just kill his 3rd and nat easier, heck when the next set of thors pops out you just pull workers and repair them and kill the mutas. Like I've said I've _never_(Edit: Nvm I remember now 2 losses when all my hellbats were clumped up and got massacred by blings) lost to someone that has opened up 3 base mutas against me going mech, thors in numbers just stomp them so hard that a wasted 1k+/1k+(along with all that time you aren't going roaches yet) you can't come back from. Ofcourse going blind mutas is moronic and doesn't happen that frequently.
The main part of my first statement does however stand on it's own, mech and bio/bio mech is so different that you can't really say "I can build shittons of turrets and be fine" since that simply doesn't work for bio/bio mech.
Ok, I got it. This makes sense. In my experience though, Zerg usually somehow holds his natural and counterattacks and slowly wears down my Tank or Thor numbers and swarm me with either Roaches or Mutas (+ling counterattack), depending on what he is able to kill. I might do something wrong, I will try next time, I haven't been using this build for a long time now..
On October 16 2013 17:52 Psychobabas wrote: Honestly, I think the biggest problem at the moment is PvZ and how Protoss is pretty much forced to do some 2 base allin or just die to mass mutalisks or swarm hosts.
Thats plain wrong.
Watch JD stream : when he goes mass mutalisks techswitch, it's almost always a closed game. Because of his amazing muta micro, he often wins, thought. Watch Naniwa vs Life : Naniwa just destroyed Life Swarmhosts.
And the mass BL/SH/Corruptor that some EU zergs have been using are not really efficient. They are destroyed a lot of times.
ZvP is balanced.
To be honest, it is map dependent, I do think Swarm Host play on Akilon is way too strong for example. But it is important to note that the threat of SwarmHost play is the only thing that prevent protoss to go mass turtle mode, hide behind canons all game long and going mass Voidray/tempest/HT.
However, to be honest I'd be glad if SH was more a mid game option to be agressive with it rather than a late game turtle unit, maybe like spawning more locust and nerf their HP and SwarmHost HP too.
On October 16 2013 20:14 TW wrote: Have you seen Fantasy vs Sleep game? Once Zerg has > 20 mutas flying around with Overseer, game is basically over, no matter what terran does.
This is ridiculous. Nerf WM, brilliant idea.
Haven't you seen game 2?
I can understand that zerg winning macro games seems kinda odd after what we saw the last 9 month.
I can understand that zerg winning macro games seems kinda odd after what we saw the last 9 month.
No, I don't mind Zerg winning macro games, but seeing a clump o 30 mutas flying between terran bases is odd. There is no real solution to this.
There is a solution, limit the amount of unit selection. I honestly believe it would improve the game considerably. It'd no longer be possible to make all these tight ball armies since it'd be hard to select them all.
I don't know what games you guys play but Muta Flock isn't OP and it takes forethought positioning and good micro to be able to even make mutas truly effective..... If you are having a hard time agianst mutas running around in your base and you have an army chasing it all over the place take the fight to the zerg.... he HAS to defend or takea base trade which if you are building turrets at home and use your marine mine rally into your base to defend he will most likely lose.....
I can understand that zerg winning macro games seems kinda odd after what we saw the last 9 month.
No, I don't mind Zerg winning macro games, but seeing a clump o 30 mutas flying between terran bases is odd. There is no real solution to this.
Well that's the point if you failed your aggression you lose momentum and mutalisk can freely walk around the map, but if you don't mutalisk are forced to be used to defend.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
this is true in theory but if your marines and your widow mines are in defensive position to stop a flock of 25-30 mutas where are your offensive units? at home ! Zerg free expo and win because you are stuck in your 3 bases to defend endless muta harass that can't be caught.
At that state of a match T must already have strong production, 2-3 turrets at each base, 3wms defending mineral lines and a bunch of marines with 3-3 as support defense. Also a marine-wm-medievak parade (+1-2 thors) must be heading Z bases. Also, Z cant defend without mutas, because they will die without em.
So :
Terran on 4 bases.
- 4x3 turrets = 1200 minerals - 4x3 WM = 900minerals, 300 gas, 24 pop - 4 x (8marines + 1 medivac) = 2000 minerals / 400 gas, 40 pop
Total : 4100 minerals, 700 gas, 64 pop. Can i say your solution is bad ?
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
this is true in theory but if your marines and your widow mines are in defensive position to stop a flock of 25-30 mutas where are your offensive units? at home ! Zerg free expo and win because you are stuck in your 3 bases to defend endless muta harass that can't be caught.
At that state of a match T must already have strong production, 2-3 turrets at each base, 3wms defending mineral lines and a bunch of marines with 3-3 as support defense. Also a marine-wm-medievak parade (+1-2 thors) must be heading Z bases. Also, Z cant defend without mutas, because they will die without em.
So :
Terran on 4 bases.
- 4x3 turrets = 1200 minerals - 4x3 WM = 900minerals, 300 gas, 24 pop - 4 x (8marines + 1 medivac) = 2000 minerals / 400 gas, 40 pop
Total : 4100 minerals, 700 gas, 64 pop. Can i say your solution is bad ?
Its pretty cheap, because u build it not in 1 second. And it solves so much problems. Try it, u just wrote those numbers, because they would save you from ANY muta agression. In most cases 1wm+1turret would make you safe.
Same for zerg: to defend drops we build 2-3spines, 1-2 spores, some zerglings and banes and keep em in mineral location, but in most cases it cant stop 3-3 marines without additional support. Protoss build up cannons + stalkers to defend.
Also, why Terran might have a chance to survive without static defense? You already have mulls, so dont cry about cost. If u think we must deal with 4boosted medievaks with free marines and die to it, but T must survive to mass muta without defense.. well, thats just stupid.
On October 16 2013 20:50 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know what games you guys play but Muta Flock isn't OP and it takes forethought positioning and good micro to be able to even make mutas truly effective..... If you are having a hard time agianst mutas running around in your base and you have an army chasing it all over the place take the fight to the zerg.... he HAS to defend or takea base trade which if you are building turrets at home and use your marine mine rally into your base to defend he will most likely lose.....
i dont know if i am alone in saying base trades are really awful to watch i dont mind counterattacks but full on trades are just anticlimatic
based on the recent trends i think the balance right now is in fact GOOD, and blizzard should allow at least 3 months more before making new considerations
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
this is true in theory but if your marines and your widow mines are in defensive position to stop a flock of 25-30 mutas where are your offensive units? at home ! Zerg free expo and win because you are stuck in your 3 bases to defend endless muta harass that can't be caught.
At that state of a match T must already have strong production, 2-3 turrets at each base, 3wms defending mineral lines and a bunch of marines with 3-3 as support defense. Also a marine-wm-medievak parade (+1-2 thors) must be heading Z bases. Also, Z cant defend without mutas, because they will die without em.
So :
Terran on 4 bases.
- 4x3 turrets = 1200 minerals - 4x3 WM = 900minerals, 300 gas, 24 pop - 4 x (8marines + 1 medivac) = 2000 minerals / 400 gas, 40 pop
Total : 4100 minerals, 700 gas, 64 pop. Can i say your solution is bad ?
Don't include marines + medivacs as if you're doing that strat, you're on full turtle mode.
However, if you have 1 bunch of marines at your natural (and all maps have easily defendable third), you are able to stop all muta aggression without a serious investment.
Making turrets too early will mean less Marines, making them when Muta numbers get high is correct. If you can stop a 2.5k/2.5k investment for harassment with 2k/300 - I think it is a fair deal.
And when and if you get a 4th base, you will be spread out with your initial marine squad, therefore, you're attacking with your main army, unless Zerg pulls back his Mutas to defend, he's most likely going to lose that battle. And if you're not attacking, your main army should be around your natural base and your marine squad transferred over to your 4th base.
This probably doesn't work against players like Jaedong, but I highly doubt any of us meet tier 1 players at a regular basis here.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
this is true in theory but if your marines and your widow mines are in defensive position to stop a flock of 25-30 mutas where are your offensive units? at home ! Zerg free expo and win because you are stuck in your 3 bases to defend endless muta harass that can't be caught.
At that state of a match T must already have strong production, 2-3 turrets at each base, 3wms defending mineral lines and a bunch of marines with 3-3 as support defense. Also a marine-wm-medievak parade (+1-2 thors) must be heading Z bases. Also, Z cant defend without mutas, because they will die without em.
So :
Terran on 4 bases.
- 4x3 turrets = 1200 minerals - 4x3 WM = 900minerals, 300 gas, 24 pop - 4 x (8marines + 1 medivac) = 2000 minerals / 400 gas, 40 pop
Total : 4100 minerals, 700 gas, 64 pop. Can i say your solution is bad ?
What as a Muta deterrent - somewhat - worked for me, was 2 turrets and 3 or 4 marines per base and drop a pdd when the mutas approached. Never seen it on a high level though, so there must be something terribly wrong with it.
They dont need to be, marines+wms+turrets already provide a good static defense.
this is true in theory but if your marines and your widow mines are in defensive position to stop a flock of 25-30 mutas where are your offensive units? at home ! Zerg free expo and win because you are stuck in your 3 bases to defend endless muta harass that can't be caught.
At that state of a match T must already have strong production, 2-3 turrets at each base, 3wms defending mineral lines and a bunch of marines with 3-3 as support defense. Also a marine-wm-medievak parade (+1-2 thors) must be heading Z bases. Also, Z cant defend without mutas, because they will die without em.
So :
Terran on 4 bases.
- 4x3 turrets = 1200 minerals - 4x3 WM = 900minerals, 300 gas, 24 pop - 4 x (8marines + 1 medivac) = 2000 minerals / 400 gas, 40 pop
Total : 4100 minerals, 700 gas, 64 pop. Can i say your solution is bad ?
What as a Muta deterrent - somewhat - worked for me, was 2 turrets and 3 or 4 marines per base and drop a pdd when the mutas approached. Never seen it on a high level though, so there must be something terribly wrong with it.
That kind of def makes me scary, always (im Z). + there always could be a WM near marines. Marines destroy mutas insanely good.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
Yea I agree they are figuring them out.... there is so many ways to micro around it and mitigate the damage done by widow mines but what bothers me about it is that when terran had trouble with Baneling / Winfestor terran was told to just deal with it and learn how to play..... If thats the case can we say that about widow mine vs zerg? Or are they trying to be proactive because of what happened with the winfestor era.... Which in all honesty was ZvZ finals every tournament for liek 2 straight months .... now though we are having a mix of finals so where are we seeing widow mines being a true balance problem?
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Too cost-efficient. The problem is: everyone can use WMs properly, but not everyone can hold this.
Everyone cant use WM propery at all. Why do you think so? You can see big difference even among pros regarding WM usage and how good they are at it. It was much easier to play a good positional game with siege tanks in WoL because you can actually find individual tanks among your marines ^^
Seriously though, your arguement can be said about banelings aswell. Anyone can a-move banelings but how many can split like innovation? Banelings are extremely cost efficient a lot of the times at lower levels.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Too cost-efficient. The problem is: everyone can use WMs properly, but not everyone can hold this.
Everyone cant use WM propery at all. Why do you think so? You can see big difference even among pros regarding WM usage and how good they are at it. It was much easier to play a good positional game with siege tanks in WoL because you can actually find individual tanks among your marines ^^
Seriously though, your arguement can be said about banelings aswell. Anyone can a-move banelings but how many can split like innovation? Banelings are extremely cost efficient a lot of the times at lower levels.
I agree, but without em we cant deal with marines, it was the main reason they were created for. What was the reason behind WM creation? As for friendly fire... I had no games, where it made a difference.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
not in terms of balance. But TvZ has boiled down to one build, one style of playing. Its getting boring.
On October 16 2013 21:47 Pirfiktshon wrote: Yea I agree they are figuring them out.... there is so many ways to micro around it and mitigate the damage done by widow mines but what bothers me about it is that when terran had trouble with Baneling / Winfestor terran was told to just deal with it and learn how to play..... If thats the case can we say that about widow mine vs zerg? Or are they trying to be proactive because of what happened with the winfestor era.... Which in all honesty was ZvZ finals every tournament for liek 2 straight months .... now though we are having a mix of finals so where are we seeing widow mines being a true balance problem?
Lolwut? Did blizzard not nerf the infestor hard in hots? They were just unwilling to change anything in wol as hots already addressed the issue. Why the fuck does every terran feel like they are the victim race here? Did your race not win the most tournaments? Just because you fucking suck at this game doesn't mean it's blizzards fault.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
not in terms of balance. But TvZ has boiled down to one build, one style of playing. Its getting boring.
Not Terrans' fault if all their options have been either nuked or simply lose to 90 drones + creep galore + Hive rush.
On October 16 2013 22:02 wishr wrote: I agree, but without em we cant deal with marines, it was the main reason they were created for. What was the reason behind WM creation?
To help mech deal with mutas and allow for safer openings.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
not in terms of balance. But TvZ has boiled down to one build, one style of playing. Its getting boring.
I don't think todays games between Sleep and Fantasy were boring at all despite seeing each player do the same builds + Show Spoiler +
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
not in terms of balance. But TvZ has boiled down to one build, one style of playing. Its getting boring.
I don't think todays games between Sleep and Fantasy were boring at all despite seeing each player do the same builds + Show Spoiler +
3 games in a row
Well I'm starting to notice I'm enjoying the games much more if something different happens. I really enjoyed the battlecruiser game of dream vs keen for example. I'd just love to see mech, bio tank mine, bio tank and bio mine all be possible in the match up, with more lategame transitions involving ghosts and ravens aswell. That'd be awesome, and I guess a widow mine nerf is required before this can happen.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Too cost-efficient. The problem is: everyone can use WMs properly, but not everyone can hold this.
You just described terran having to split marines against zerg a-move and fungals in WoL.
It wasn't a problem then so it shouldn't be a problem now.
Please for the love of god let's establish one thing: Nobody ever can just a move and win unless they are really fucking far ahead. A moving does not happen all that much on pro level if at all. Just because you can offrace on a shitty foreign server and get diamond a moving around with a race you dislike doesn't mean it's actually viable, it wasn't even at the end of wol (and i didn't even play zerg in wol).
I do agree however that how "easy" or "hard' it feels for anyone to do x compared to what the other race has to do is complete and utter bs. This is a game with 3 different races and in almost every situation both sides have to do completely different things, so unless you talk about something like mech vs bio in tvt you really should never take into account how "easy" it seems for the other guy. On top of that I can guarantee you that microing against anti-mine micro is, just like microing against mines in the first place, not an easy task to accomplish. TBH I think, despite a mine that doesn't die after shooting being a major design flaw that mines actually add a lot to the game and we definitely need more units that allow both sides to micro.
The thing is that with the infestor in WoL and fungal in particular it took a long time for everyone to pretty much agree that it was OP at in the end nobody could deny it. WM started off being considered OP but this has changed as time as gone by the notion the OP WM has slowly diminished among players and fans. The discussion about is quite small if it was considered to strong so imo we should wait.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
not in terms of balance. But TvZ has boiled down to one build, one style of playing. Its getting boring.
TvZ can still be very entertaining but I agree that it has become to predictable with terran having one way of playing TvP and one way of playing TvZ. But if you want to change this by nerfing the WM then you will need to do more than increase the siege tanks attack speed by a tiny bit.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
not in terms of balance. But TvZ has boiled down to one build, one style of playing. Its getting boring.
TvZ can still be very entertaining but I agree that it has become to predictable with terran having one way of playing TvP and one way of playing TvZ. But if you want to change this by nerfing the WM then you will need to do more than increase the siege tanks attack speed by a tiny bit.
yes agreed. or maybe reconsider the muta buffs that were reactionary to the strength of the widow mines. Or a combination of both. I don't really like the kind of muta plays in PvZ anyways, so I'd be all for nerfing the mutas along with the widow mines.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Too cost-efficient. The problem is: everyone can use WMs properly, but not everyone can hold this.
You just described terran having to split marines against zerg a-move and fungals in WoL.
It wasn't a problem then so it shouldn't be a problem now.
Please for the love of god let's establish one thing: Nobody ever can just a move and win unless they are really fucking far ahead. A moving does not happen all that much on pro level if at all. Just because you can offrace on a shitty foreign server and get diamond a moving around with a race you dislike doesn't mean it's actually viable, it wasn't even at the end of wol (and i didn't even play zerg in wol).
On October 16 2013 21:47 Pirfiktshon wrote: Yea I agree they are figuring them out.... there is so many ways to micro around it and mitigate the damage done by widow mines but what bothers me about it is that when terran had trouble with Baneling / Winfestor terran was told to just deal with it and learn how to play..... If thats the case can we say that about widow mine vs zerg? Or are they trying to be proactive because of what happened with the winfestor era.... Which in all honesty was ZvZ finals every tournament for liek 2 straight months .... now though we are having a mix of finals so where are we seeing widow mines being a true balance problem?
Lolwut? Did blizzard not nerf the infestor hard in hots? They were just unwilling to change anything in wol as hots already addressed the issue. Why the fuck does every terran feel like they are the victim race here? Did your race not win the most tournaments? Just because you fucking suck at this game doesn't mean it's blizzards fault.
First off remove the Pole you sit on that makes you so unbelievably hostile toward everyone.... I do not feel like a victim race Everytime they Nerf/buff something in TvZ it seems to have an EXTREME effect on the match up whether the buff to infestor or the losefestor they made now though they are trying to balance it I don't believe this action is actually merited do you? ( Try not to answer by insulting anyone and everyone and have a discussion instead mmmk?)
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
not in terms of balance. But TvZ has boiled down to one build, one style of playing. Its getting boring.
TvZ can still be very entertaining but I agree that it has become to predictable with terran having one way of playing TvP and one way of playing TvZ. But if you want to change this by nerfing the WM then you will need to do more than increase the siege tanks attack speed by a tiny bit.
yes agreed. or maybe reconsider the muta buffs that were reactionary to the strength of the widow mines. Or a combination of both. I don't really like the kind of muta plays in PvZ anyways, so I'd be all for nerfing the mutas along with the widow mines.
Mutalisk buff were mostly a reaction to the medivacs boost I believe . To be honest I believe that protoss player have way more right complain about mutalisk than terran.
Anyway, I'm just throwing this but I would like to see a test with a buff of late game unit like thor or BC for terran, in exchange for a slightly higher gas cost. That way, with the buff you would see more transition from bio mines to late game units since in these situation terran usually build up a gas bank, while a higher gas cost would prevent turtle/passive play behind Planetary/turrets to occures. thoughts?
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state. The TvZ is too mine focused which is ridiculous. I dare to say that it is not working as intended. The mine should not be the backbone of the terran army in TvZ but a gimmicky addition. Let blizzard go for it. If balance isnt well enaugh after a change blizzard will continue to buff other terran mechanics.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
That was an excellent series of games and well worth watching.
As to Flash at IEM NY i am almost certain he didn't get drilling claws for his WM ( might be wrong on this)
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course there are some exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening. People more and more leave the game due to this. This is a major SC2 issue that is being discussed everywhere. But your lack of common sense doesn't let you put things together. Hf being stuck on your narrow sight on things.
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Flash is 42nd in WCS Standings, not too far behind Welmu and Dimaga. Flash playing SC2 is Michael Jordan playing Baseball.
On October 16 2013 21:36 Fjodorov wrote: I wish they would hold off on the WM nerf. I just dont see how its justified. Does anyone see how?
Its not justified. Good players know how to handle widow mines, its just the noobs who whine when faced with an issue rather than trying to figure out a way is the real issue at hand. I've watched so many streams lately of top level terrans. All i see is good zergs smashing it ez. Widow mines aren't an issue if you handle them properly
not in terms of balance. But TvZ has boiled down to one build, one style of playing. Its getting boring.
Not Terrans' fault if all their options have been either nuked or simply lose to 90 drones + creep galore + Hive rush.
Cry me an effing river. When other races lose, their players 'choke', but when Terrans lose, their 'options have been nuked'. You are such a joke.
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
As I see it, I can get behind changing things up so 4M isn't so dominant strategy in TvZ. I don't think nerfing VM is needed to do that, they should rather focus on fixing the issues the rest of unit combos have. So to add diversity to TvZ isn't an argument for nerfing VMs. Nerfing VMs is only a good choice if you think they are to strong, which I'd atleast disagree with, though I do think they are terrible to watch(as in the micro of VMs goes mostly unnoticed fx. Hack's drop at Snutes main, was he microing those 2x VMs to not fire or did he get lucky?). in comparison to most notably the tank.
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Anyway, I'm just throwing this but I would like to see a test with a buff of late game unit like thor or BC for terran, in exchange for a slightly higher gas cost. That way, with the buff you would see more transition from bio mines to late game units since in these situation terran usually build up a gas bank, while a higher gas cost would prevent turtle/passive play behind Planetary/turrets to occures. thoughts?
I would also love to see a buff to the terran units that are rarely used (for all races). :D These are: - Thor - Battlecruiser
Also I would like to see a buff to the banshee that makes it a little bit more viable in the lategame. As of now, if the game advances far enough into the lategame, it becomes useless if the opponent has some sort of static defense. It should probably be in form of an upgrade on the fusion core, so it won't have an effect on early and midgame.
Things from other races that are rarely used: carriers and nydus. Players of the other races will probably be able to name more units.
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
Some people have an irrational dislike of the swarm host purely based on the fact that it spawns free units, based on traumatic memories of brood lord infestor. Blizzard nerfed the infestor significantly in the HotS beta, but when they realized they had gone too far and they gave a small counter buff, there was again outcry from people that could not live in a world where the infestor was a viable unit. You'll see the same thing for the widow mine: despite its actual strength or place in the game, some people just dislike the unit and will grab at everything to justify nerfing it. So Fantasy vs Sleep becomes "Fantasy lucked out due to randomness of the mine" even though that's a mischaracterization. On the other hand there are some units that the community favors, such as siege tanks, in which case no buff would be enough and nobody cares about the actual balance of the game. I think Blizzard would do well to not take the community's emotions into consideration when balancing.
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
Some people have an irrational dislike of the swarm host purely based on the fact that it spawns free units, based on traumatic memories of brood lord infestor. Blizzard nerfed the infestor significantly in the HotS beta, but when they realized they had gone too far and they gave a small counter buff, there was again outcry from people that could not live in a world where the infestor was a viable unit. You'll see the same thing for the widow mine: despite its actual strength or place in the game, some people just dislike the unit and will grab at everything to justify nerfing it. So Fantasy vs Sleep becomes "Fantasy lucked out due to randomness of the mine" even though that's a mischaracterization. On the other hand there are some units that the community favors, such as siege tanks, in which case no buff would be enough and nobody cares about the actual balance of the game. I think Blizzard would do well to not take the community's emotions into consideration when balancing.
They already do not take the community's emotions into consideration when balancing. DT buff removal was related to rational reasons most likely.
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Anyway, I'm just throwing this but I would like to see a test with a buff of late game unit like thor or BC for terran, in exchange for a slightly higher gas cost. That way, with the buff you would see more transition from bio mines to late game units since in these situation terran usually build up a gas bank, while a higher gas cost would prevent turtle/passive play behind Planetary/turrets to occures. thoughts?
I would also love to see a buff to the terran units that are rarely used (for all races). :D These are: - Thor - Battlecruiser
Also I would like to see a buff to the banshee that makes it a little bit more viable in the lategame. As of now, if the game advances far enough into the lategame, it becomes useless if the opponent has some sort of static defense. It should probably be in form of an upgrade on the fusion core, so it won't have an effect on early and midgame.
Things from other races that are rarely used: carriers and nydus. Players of the other races will probably be able to name more units.
On October 16 2013 23:00 LSN wrote: I would not consider him a top korean terran right now.
Twice one map away from Code S RO8, best or second best Terran macro in the world: "not a top Korean Terran." I guess Bogus also became an anonymous mid-tier Terran in your eyes since he's in Code A right now?
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all
I did not take this as a measure for balance. Learn to read without constantly distorting what people write and you might understand what I meant.
and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed.
The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Indeed. The tank"buff" does absolutely shit. Please buff the tanks properly...
Suggest one without screwing up the game completely. Also, i still liek the direction they are going.
+ 10 dmg to shields.
Good thing against immortals, yeah :3? Still keeps them useless against zerg anyways.
remove smart fire for the tanks and allow overkill
They came out with that idea right after bomber used it against Scarlett..... He opened up with 3 siege tanks then switched to bio mine... Which was more of a reaction to her very VERY good 2-2 timings and lair timings.... I guess they really wanted to see that played more but honestly if you think about it if zergs started playing more like scarlett terran would almost be forced into tthat type of opener but late game I can't see Siege tank + WM even being effective enough against the now meta of Ling bling muta into ultra+infestor just because of the cost of investment of Factories and build time ..... Push speed would be GREATLY slowed down.........
The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
Pretty much what I was trying to say with my statement just 10x better hahahaha
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
LSN is just beyond dumb. He even fails to realize that 'design' and 'balance' are different topics. If you want to talk about design LSN, go talk about design in a blog. Lots of people (me including) think Starcraft 2 has flaws in its design, but a match up being 'stale' or 'showing the same strategies' doesn't mean it needs to be changed when its in fact - not imbalanced.
Please understand it. Anyways, I'm outta here, stupidity is too high.
On October 16 2013 23:36 TheDwf wrote: The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
And what makes you think that blizzard wont change any op zerg mechanics and insufficient t capabilities if the mine nerf hits the matchup hard and makes it onesided while not offering good alternatives at the same time?
Rather start changes or keep anything as it is and have a stale matchup until the release for the next add-on, lose playerbase, lose spectators? I'd say go for it blizzard. Nerf mines and then nerf anything else that is needed and finally we might get a matchup/game where it is worth to use ones brain and where you can see upsets and intelligent moves in addition to the pure test of mechanics.
On October 16 2013 23:57 NarutO wrote: LSN is just beyond dumb. He even fails to realize that 'design' and 'balance' are different topics. If you want to talk about design LSN, go talk about design in a blog. Lots of people (me including) think Starcraft 2 has flaws in its design, but a match up being 'stale' or 'showing the same strategies' doesn't mean it needs to be changed when its in fact - not imbalanced.
Please understand it. Anyways, I'm outta here, stupidity is too high.
@Naruto: If mods were not biased, you had actually been perma banned long time ago out of this forum.
Pretty much they are both saying that you heard it here first that it WILL make some zerg mechanics OP and if they are nerfing WM they have to do the same to zerg at the same time or give Terran stronger buff than 10% ROF otherwise you'll start seeing the scales tip hard and fast......
On October 17 2013 00:13 Pirfiktshon wrote: Pretty much they are both saying that you heard it here first that it WILL make some zerg mechanics OP and if they are nerfing WM they have to do the same to zerg at the same time or give Terran stronger buff than 10% ROF otherwise you'll start seeing the scales tip hard and fast......
Well I know this myself but I can't help it if blizzard needs to do things step by step and see actual results first and stuff. Tankbuff + combined upgrades isn't at all a bad thing to start off with I'd answer.
On October 17 2013 00:05 LSN wrote: And what makes you think that blizzard wont change any op zerg mechanics and insufficient t capabilities if the mine nerf hits the matchup hard and makes it onesided while not offering good alternatives at the same time?
I don't know, perhaps the fact they didn't touch core macro mechanics since beta? Purposefully pushing one match-up towards one side's favor in hope people in charge of the game suddenly become aware of the glaring flaws left unchecked for 3 years is just so far-fetched I can't believe you write this seriously.
Blizzard will take care of it for their own sake. They can't afford to mess up more than they already did with things in the recent past.
Although I'd say core race mechanics don't necessarily need to be changed at all (inject/creep). A simple nerf of some units muta/ultralisk/viper would probably be enaugh to get things right and a buff of some terran mech/air-units. The macro abilities of P/T aren't bad at all too. Terran lategame army just does need an improvement. The matchup should eventually be like this: Z throws stuff against terran so it doesnt get too strong and kills the zerg in the end on 4-5 base so Z can use its production mechanics and terran its countless defensive mechanics. Right now it is just the wrong way round and this is why it is not working out well. T has the race mechanics for what is needed when playing Z and Z has the mechanic for what is needed when playing T in current metagame. This can be changed for sure without touching the race core mechanics but changing some lategame units.
All i think about those changes is that nerf to muta regen is needed now. Like to 0.75 or even 0.5 i think is fine. Seriously, some tosses already just quit the game the second they see mutas in their base (okay, i add insult to injury by going double spire, but who cares).
Without even speaking of muta play, I'd like to see advancements of other playstyles, whether they be mass ling aggression, infestor plays, etc! ZvT is so gas based, I'd like to see some mineral based focus.
I do hope we see the tank come back, but not as a part of mech.
On October 16 2013 23:36 TheDwf wrote: The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
Nope. It's stale since Banelings are the only way to go in the midgame vs mass marines and since Mech is worse than before, mostly because of the Viper.
The core of the problem lies there: Terran has to go marine/medivac based because nothing else works. Zergs has to go banelings/mutalisk based because nothing else works. Then you add a few sidekick units to those core compositions and that's the whole transitionpath you get.
Edit: The queen patch did nothing but eliminate a fuckton of coinflips from the 2011/12 metagame and thereby revealing the balance problems of the matchup. (Terran having trouble in the lategame of WoL, after a balanced early/midgame)
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
On October 15 2013 03:44 sibs wrote: They should probably hold off on nerfs for another 2 months, Zerg hasn't done very well lately, but it seems to be getting better without patches. But then again if we actually had top terrans on this IEM NY they'd probably have won it...
Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
On October 15 2013 03:46 TheDwf wrote: [quote] Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
On October 15 2013 03:46 TheDwf wrote: [quote] Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
Hey, as someone who missed all the fun with marine tank vs MLB, can someone give me a VOD of it on a non-retarded map :D? Last time i have seen a really fun Marine Tank v MLB game it ended with ghost sniping all the stuff.
On October 15 2013 03:46 TheDwf wrote: [quote] Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
And terrans were still losing with a 2 supply siege tank that cost 100 less gas... So why do they think terrans would go back to marine tank when tank now shoot 10% faster. One of the core reasons Terran play with mines vs MLB is because they are good vs mutas. Not sure how you can buff the siege tank to be good vs mutas.
On October 15 2013 03:46 TheDwf wrote: [quote] Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
Honestly, a lot of the Marine/Tank vs. Mutalingbane being entertaining came from players just being bad at the time. Zerg staying on Tier 2 for 30 minutes, not upgrading their ground units or barely upgrading them, not using infestors at all, etc. Terran was absolutely ahead of Zerg in terms of development at the time, and even without a queen buff, Marine/Tank vs. Mutalingbane would have died as Zerg development caught up with Terran development.
On October 16 2013 23:00 LSN wrote: [quote] Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
Honestly, a lot of the Marine/Tank vs. Mutalingbane being entertaining came from players just being bad at the time. Zerg staying on Tier 2 for 30 minutes, not upgrading their ground units or barely upgrading them, not using infestors at all, etc. Terran was absolutely ahead of Zerg in terms of development at the time, and even without a queen buff, Marine/Tank vs. Mutalingbane would have died as Zerg development caught up with Terran development.
It's not like in modern TvZs Zerg does get T3, especially if it is DRG lol.
On October 16 2013 23:00 LSN wrote: [quote] Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint.
On October 15 2013 03:46 TheDwf wrote: [quote] Flash didn't win IEM New York.
Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
Muta/Ling/bling vs Marine/Mine/Medivac is just as interesting. What is upsetting is that there are no alternatives. There are no infestors or mech. There are no transitions. The optimal way to play is not to use your unit reportaire strategically. Even Ultras and Infestors are hardly ever seen, since zergs are just getting comfortable going 2-2 muta/ling/bling without any other investments. Not to talk about Broodlords, Vipers, Swarm Hosts, Hydras... If you are lucky you see the occasional roach allin. (don't get me started about useless Terran units...)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
Honestly, a lot of the Marine/Tank vs. Mutalingbane being entertaining came from players just being bad at the time. Zerg staying on Tier 2 for 30 minutes, not upgrading their ground units or barely upgrading them, not using infestors at all, etc. Terran was absolutely ahead of Zerg in terms of development at the time, and even without a queen buff, Marine/Tank vs. Mutalingbane would have died as Zerg development caught up with Terran development.
It's not like in modern TvZs Zerg does get T3, especially if it is DRG lol.
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint.
So mine is not OP, but it is nerfed. Tank gets buff but is not enough to offset the nerf. But overall the mine nerf is ok? Not sure how that is logical at all.
So storm is not OP but it can be nerfed. Then carrier gets buffed but not enough to offset the storm nerf. But overall the storm nerf is ok?
I see zergs falling back more and more to the heavy queen openings with huge economy and massive creep spread. If terran fails to do dmg with the first stim/medivac timing its pretty much over all ready. Its a very small window were damage needs to be done and I dont see a tiny attack speed increase for the tank helping out here if mine gets nerfed.
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint.
So mine is not OP, but it is nerfed. Tank gets buff but is not enough to offset the nerf. But overall the mine nerf is ok? Not sure how that is logical at all.
So storm is not OP but it can be nerfed. Then carrier gets buffed but not enough to offset the storm nerf. But overall the storm nerf is ok?
The widow mine is not currently OP because it's counterable and isn't breaking the matchup (good winrate balance). The nerf will lessen FF damage and still leave a decent-sized kill-zone for the detonations, and a slight mobility buff to the siege tank would probably allow them to be mixed in. So the nerf is okay because it will hopefully allow a quality-of-life improvement to the game (by way of increased player options on both sides), and the tank is being looked at for buffs, and thus will likely be buffed further in some way if the refire rate buff isn't enough.
Storms and Carriers don't have a similar role. Tanks and mines do. They're not even down the same tech path.
A similar comparison would be nerfing Storm but giving Dark Templar or Archons some sort of ranged splash ability. In which case a nerfed (but still usable) Storm and enhanced Dark Templar functionality might be a net-positive for the game.
On October 16 2013 23:36 TheDwf wrote: The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
Nope. It's stale since Banelings are the only way to go in the midgame vs mass marines and since Mech is worse than before, mostly because of the Viper.
The core of the problem lies there: Terran has to go marine/medivac based because nothing else works. Zergs has to go banelings/mutalisk based because nothing else works. Then you add a few sidekick units to those core compositions and that's the whole transitionpath you get.
Edit: The queen patch did nothing but eliminate a fuckton of coinflips from the 2011/12 metagame and thereby revealing the balance problems of the matchup. (Terran having trouble in the lategame of WoL, after a balanced early/midgame)
As usual your analysis of the consequences of the Queen patch is off; how can you even fail to recognize the gigantic difference in creep surface by midgame (something which have major consequences for Tank-based play as Zerg ground units on creep can overwhelm Tanks so easily) when you can start your spread 4 minuts earlier, or simply the difference between having a free 6' third and having to fight for it by making either speedlings or a few Roaches? Not to mention virtually eliminating timings (HotS gave back one strong timing to Terran with Hellbats, but of course it was promptly relegated to oblivion with a quick stroke of the nerf hammer; how convenient) because they cannot reliably equalize anymore.
All of the attacks you refer to, Hellions/Marauders, 2 fact Hellions, etc., could have been easily shut down by the Overlord part of the patch alone (or even the HotS solution of overspeed at tier1), better maps (at the time there were still maps such as Metalopolis or XNC with wide open naturals), or even the natural development of Zerg's play with the systematisation of evos/spine/queens walls, etc. Yet strangely enough, all the easy Roaches coinflips Zerg still enjoys by now weren't patched; double standards as usual.
Banelings are not even the main actor in the Zerg side of the 4M scenario as lings/mutas do well against low Marines numbers below a huge Medivac count; Banelings are there to make sure Terran cannot simply keep 50+ Marines in a ball and massacre everything, but Zerg doesn't have to get tons of them. Roaches/Hydras has also no troubles handling mass Marines so I have absolutely no idea why you bring back up your eternal rant about the Marine being too strong.
I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unluck the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP aswell maybe?
On October 17 2013 01:22 Big J wrote:Edit: The queen patch did nothing but eliminate a fuckton of coinflips from the 2011/12 metagame and thereby revealing the balance problems of the matchup. (Terran having trouble in the lategame of WoL, after a balanced early/midgame)
Part of the problem is that the threat of those coinflips needed to exist to keep the Zerg economy in check. After those were removed by the queen/overlord patch became significantly harder to play against Zerg as the other races. Now there is little Terran can do in the early/mid game against a good Zerg to threaten them, and for Protoss it is even worse with the current 3 hatch before pool way Zergs are playing since there are so few pressures Protoss can do that actually work to punish that super fast third outside of all-ins yet if Protoss tries to take a fast third themselves to keep up it is trivial for Zerg to force a cancel and delay it significantly (as we saw repeatedly at IEM last weekend).
I still think they should have removed the queen buff when they released HOTS. It would have fixed a lot of issues. The overlord buff made sense. The queen buff seemed completely arbitrary and ruined any semblance of balance the game had.
Note that I'm non-HotS player but from what I've watched, one of the main problems of TvZ is that Terran wants to deny creep as early as possible but zergs overrun their army. Example: Flash vs DRG
So, why doesn't creep tumor get nerfed by: 50 energy requirement/Lair/make it research. I'm not a game balance guy but I'm sure David Kim can come up with some kind of creep solution if he tries.
Reasoning behind nerf: it's currently a no-brain activity to do while it gives major advantage. At least make it harder to do. Another thing may be to reduce gained creep from a creep tumor. In other words, radius.
On October 16 2013 23:00 LSN wrote: [quote] Honestly flash's performance was at best average at IEMNY and the use of mines was quite poor. He always burrowed too late and never had enaugh mines. His timings in general seemed odd when he moved out just always with a bit too few units. Even commentators acknowledged that flash better should play mech due to the poor state of his bio play and this tells alot due to the fact that bio/mine is obviously way superior to mech play.
I would not consider him a top korean terran right now. He seems bored of the game and when you ask for the reasons then he has given the answers himself: he wants more variety and mech being viable. This is what you can see when you watch him play.
I wonder why you try to take this as a measure for balance at all and on the other hand I wonder why you'd like to see the matchup keep being stale. The first reason for it being stale is the mine so it must be changed. Alot more must be changed as well. In fact alot of zerg mechanics must be reworked too to give the matchup a few different play styles on each side not just bling/muta vs bio/mine but for now lets start with the mine. I guess terrans like you rather see the game dieing instead of accepting some changes which require more changes etc. If you dont change the mine there will never be any reason for terrans not to play bio/mine in its current state.
Alot of top tier players have already mentioned that they dislike the randomness of games in many situations. This is what I said about lucky win mechanics as well since the beginning of the discussion. The mine is such a mechanic amongst others as it either hits 12 banelings or not and this decides games. Noone wants to see this. TvZ is btw only interesting to watch if zergs win (as you watch them how they manage to overcome the terran). If terran wins its always boring to watch lol. So blizzard in general needs to reduce these lucky win mechanics. It kills the fun and is not connected to superior play but just a lucky move or not. Noone wants to play this even if it might balance out in one or the other way and even if it might be exciting to watch. E.g. demuslim has talked about this as well and given the mine as an example as well being a terran himself.
Conclusingly: In general alot of things need to be changed to make SC2 a more fun game to play and to give it its strategical variance that it deserves. The mine is one part of it and therefore everybody should encourage blizzard to change the mine and then follow up with more changes in the right direction instead of supporting blizzard to keep a stale boring metagame just for the temporal sake of ones own race in this very moment which is what you do over and over again when I read your comments in this thread. Very true that good players (what you might be) usually have not a bit of a clue about good game design ;-)
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
Hey, as someone who missed all the fun with marine tank vs MLB, can someone give me a VOD of it on a non-retarded map :D? Last time i have seen a really fun Marine Tank v MLB game it ended with ghost sniping all the stuff.
asusrog finals polt vs stephano is a good example.
Fantasy vs Sleep Game 3 from GSL Code A was amazing to watch and rated one of the best games. Most if not all people enjoyed it. Terran won.
MAN BORING SHIT BRO. You are full of shit and always will be.
one more of these guys I mentioned ... :D
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
People are upset because Marine/Tank vs MutaLingBane was the BEST matchup, the most fun to watch, and one of the most exciting. And then terran was given a 2 supply siege tank that costs 100 less gas.
People are upset because they miss the days when it was Marine/Tank vs Mutalingbane
Hey, as someone who missed all the fun with marine tank vs MLB, can someone give me a VOD of it on a non-retarded map :D? Last time i have seen a really fun Marine Tank v MLB game it ended with ghost sniping all the stuff.
asusrog finals polt vs stephano is a good example.
For you again: TvZ is stale. Let blizzard to its job and change things step by step so more tactics get viable. They cant obviously do it all at once. The matchup needs to get some creative options for the players that enforce switches on the metagame. Your raging wont change anything about this. Btw most TvZ where terrans win are boring. Of course their are exceptions. In general ZvT is exciting to watch but still it is stale and always the exact same that is happening.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint.
So mine is not OP, but it is nerfed. Tank gets buff but is not enough to offset the nerf. But overall the mine nerf is ok? Not sure how that is logical at all.
I don't think looking at a single unit is a good aproach. Mines don't exist in a vacuum. Looking at top level TvZ from the last few months, it looks as if MMMM might - yes might - be OP, but it is certainly too much of a Swiss army knife without a clearly defined counter.
I've seen people switch to Ultras and being killed during the transition before thre Ultras spawn, I've seen people being killed after Ultras spawn as there was no support left, I've seen the Combo take out broodlords and infestors. I've seen RorO play masterfully - hitting with fungals, hitting with banes, creating surrounds - but die miserably to drops as he had no static defense.
Something has to be done, Blizzard obviously doesn't even consider to touch the holy Marine, doesn't want to touch the Medivac, both better choices imho, so the mine it is. If this mini-nerf goes thru along with the proposed armory upgrade mergers and the tank buff, we can in the future as well expect to see at least as many Terrans at the top of rankings as the other races combined.
On October 17 2013 02:36 darkness wrote: Note that I'm non-HotS player but from what I've watched, one of the main problems of TvZ is that Terran wants to deny creep as early as possible but zergs overrun their army. Example: Flash vs DRG
So, why doesn't creep tumor get nerfed by: 50 energy requirement/Lair/make it research. I'm not a game balance guy but I'm sure David Kim can come up with some kind of creep solution if he tries.
Reasoning behind nerf: it's currently a no-brain activity to do while it gives major advantage. At least make it harder to do. Another thing may be to reduce gained creep from a creep tumor. In other words, radius.
The creep nerf was proposed but then Mvp won an IEM mostly by beating foreign zergs and the change was dropped.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint.
So mine is not OP, but it is nerfed. Tank gets buff but is not enough to offset the nerf. But overall the mine nerf is ok? Not sure how that is logical at all.
I don't think looking at a single unit is a good aproach. Mines don't exist in a vacuum. Looking at top level TvZ from the last few months, it looks as if MMMM might - yes might - be OP, but it is certainly too much of a Swiss army knife without a clearly defined counter.
I've seen people switch to Ultras and being killed during the transition before thre Ultras spawn, I've seen people being killed after Ultras spawn as there was no support left, I've seen the Combo take out broodlords and infestors. I've seen RorO play masterfully - hitting with fungals, hitting with banes, creating surrounds - but die miserably to drops as he had no static defense.
Something has to be done, Blizzard obviously doesn't even consider to touch the holy Marine, doesn't want to touch the Medivac, both better choices imho, so the mine it is. If this mini-nerf goes thru along with the proposed armory upgrade mergers and the tank buff, we can in the future as well expect to see at least as many Terrans at the top of rankings as the other races combined.
Back when 1-1-1 was destroying protoss, people were asking for marine nerf. Well, Blizzard said it was too much of a core unit as far as I remember. Don't expect such move from them.
Have you even read blizzards reasoning behind the widow mine nerf?
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint.
So mine is not OP, but it is nerfed. Tank gets buff but is not enough to offset the nerf. But overall the mine nerf is ok? Not sure how that is logical at all.
I don't think looking at a single unit is a good aproach. Mines don't exist in a vacuum. Looking at top level TvZ from the last few months, it looks as if MMMM might - yes might - be OP, but it is certainly too much of a Swiss army knife without a clearly defined counter.
I've seen people switch to Ultras and being killed during the transition before thre Ultras spawn, I've seen people being killed after Ultras spawn as there was no support left, I've seen the Combo take out broodlords and infestors. I've seen RorO play masterfully - hitting with fungals, hitting with banes, creating surrounds - but die miserably to drops as he had no static defense.
Something has to be done, Blizzard obviously doesn't even consider to touch the holy Marine, doesn't want to touch the Medivac, both better choices imho, so the mine it is. If this mini-nerf goes thru along with the proposed armory upgrade mergers and the tank buff, we can in the future as well expect to see at least as many Terrans at the top of rankings as the other races combined.
So where is the clear counter for muta ling bling. People complaining against 4M needs to understand that it is the only comp mobile enough to deal with MLB that doesn't have a huge down side like mech.
On October 17 2013 02:36 darkness wrote: Note that I'm non-HotS player but from what I've watched, one of the main problems of TvZ is that Terran wants to deny creep as early as possible but zergs overrun their army. Example: Flash vs DRG
So, why doesn't creep tumor get nerfed by: 50 energy requirement/Lair/make it research. I'm not a game balance guy but I'm sure David Kim can come up with some kind of creep solution if he tries.
Reasoning behind nerf: it's currently a no-brain activity to do while it gives major advantage. At least make it harder to do. Another thing may be to reduce gained creep from a creep tumor. In other words, radius.
The creep nerf was proposed but then Mvp won an IEM mostly by beating foreign zergs and the change was dropped.
And Raven buff was cancelled because of Mvp too. Damn, man, this guy alone was a bigger nerf proposer, than David Kim.
Did you? Do you take into consideration that blizzard doesnt reveal everything what is going on in their heads? Did you recognize that blizzard just put some completely unnecessary protoss buffs into the testmap just to make the users of all races happy? What does this imply?
Alot of questions to be answered.
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint.
So mine is not OP, but it is nerfed. Tank gets buff but is not enough to offset the nerf. But overall the mine nerf is ok? Not sure how that is logical at all.
I don't think looking at a single unit is a good aproach. Mines don't exist in a vacuum. Looking at top level TvZ from the last few months, it looks as if MMMM might - yes might - be OP, but it is certainly too much of a Swiss army knife without a clearly defined counter.
I've seen people switch to Ultras and being killed during the transition before thre Ultras spawn, I've seen people being killed after Ultras spawn as there was no support left, I've seen the Combo take out broodlords and infestors. I've seen RorO play masterfully - hitting with fungals, hitting with banes, creating surrounds - but die miserably to drops as he had no static defense.
Something has to be done, Blizzard obviously doesn't even consider to touch the holy Marine, doesn't want to touch the Medivac, both better choices imho, so the mine it is. If this mini-nerf goes thru along with the proposed armory upgrade mergers and the tank buff, we can in the future as well expect to see at least as many Terrans at the top of rankings as the other races combined.
So where is the clear counter for muta ling bling. People complaining against 4M needs to understand that it is the only comp mobile enough to deal with MLB that doesn't have a huge down side like mech.
No clear counter either, conceded. Still three points: Terran can have the same economy with fewer workers, so bigger army cap. Terran static defense is better vs Muta/ling/bling than Zerg static d vs MMMM. And MMMM tends to trade efficiently overall and will always trade gas-efficiently, as Medivacs simply get away with boost. So without clear counter on either side cost-efficiency comes into the equation and that seems to heavily favor terran.
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote: I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unluck the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP aswell maybe?
I would've said to make engineering bays cheaper so that building a seperate bay for these upgrades do not hurt that much, but then I thought of engi bay blocks.
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote: I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unluck the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP aswell maybe?
Hear that, David Kim? We want another balance change for bunkers!
But seriously, it's kind of sad that that upgrade never gets used. They should just make it an upgrade for minerals only at the CC so someone could find a way to do a cute bunker rush with it :p
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable.
Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol.
Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves.
To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general.
I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale.
But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ?
Probably because neither of these things need to happen.
Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger.
And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game.
I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint.
So mine is not OP, but it is nerfed. Tank gets buff but is not enough to offset the nerf. But overall the mine nerf is ok? Not sure how that is logical at all.
I don't think looking at a single unit is a good aproach. Mines don't exist in a vacuum. Looking at top level TvZ from the last few months, it looks as if MMMM might - yes might - be OP, but it is certainly too much of a Swiss army knife without a clearly defined counter.
I've seen people switch to Ultras and being killed during the transition before thre Ultras spawn, I've seen people being killed after Ultras spawn as there was no support left, I've seen the Combo take out broodlords and infestors. I've seen RorO play masterfully - hitting with fungals, hitting with banes, creating surrounds - but die miserably to drops as he had no static defense.
Something has to be done, Blizzard obviously doesn't even consider to touch the holy Marine, doesn't want to touch the Medivac, both better choices imho, so the mine it is. If this mini-nerf goes thru along with the proposed armory upgrade mergers and the tank buff, we can in the future as well expect to see at least as many Terrans at the top of rankings as the other races combined.
So where is the clear counter for muta ling bling. People complaining against 4M needs to understand that it is the only comp mobile enough to deal with MLB that doesn't have a huge down side like mech.
No clear counter either, conceded. Still three points: Terran can have the same economy with fewer workers, so bigger army cap. Terran static defense is better vs Muta/ling/bling than Zerg static d vs MMMM. And MMMM tends to trade efficiently overall and will always trade gas-efficiently, as Medivacs simply get away with boost. So without clear counter on either side cost-efficiency comes into the equation and that seems to heavily favor terran.
The only point I agree with is workers and economy - however zergs will still usually have a larger economy (especially gas economy). No reasonable amount of static D will hold a mutalisk ball. As long as creep is a factor the zerg army has the speed advantage and should be able to trade very efficiently with the terran army - even if gas is being traded zerg is harvesting more.
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote: I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unluck the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP aswell maybe?
I would've said to make engineering bays cheaper so that building a seperate bay for these upgrades do not hurt that much, but then I thought of engi bay blocks.
Part of the reason for the suggestion is also terran being the least reactive race (having least reactive capabilities). So the bunker drop would be a good option when you see zerg (which is impossible to scout because of 1 building for all-game unit production) roach pushing for example, you can do some last minute adjustments.
On October 16 2013 23:36 TheDwf wrote: The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
Nope. It's stale since Banelings are the only way to go in the midgame vs mass marines and since Mech is worse than before, mostly because of the Viper.
The core of the problem lies there: Terran has to go marine/medivac based because nothing else works. Zergs has to go banelings/mutalisk based because nothing else works. Then you add a few sidekick units to those core compositions and that's the whole transitionpath you get.
Edit: The queen patch did nothing but eliminate a fuckton of coinflips from the 2011/12 metagame and thereby revealing the balance problems of the matchup. (Terran having trouble in the lategame of WoL, after a balanced early/midgame)
As usual your analysis of the consequences of the Queen patch is off; how can you even fail to recognize the gigantic difference in creep surface by midgame (something which have major consequences for Tank-based play as Zerg ground units on creep can overwhelm Tanks so easily) when you can start your spread 4 minuts earlier, or simply the difference between having a free 6' third and having to fight for it by making either speedlings or a few Roaches? Not to mention virtually eliminating timings (HotS gave back one strong timing to Terran with Hellbats, but of course it was promptly relegated to oblivion with a quick stroke of the nerf hammer; how convenient) because they cannot reliably equalize anymore.
All of the attacks you refer to, Hellions/Marauders, 2 fact Hellions, etc., could have been easily shut down by the Overlord part of the patch alone (or even the HotS solution of overspeed at tier1), better maps (at the time there were still maps such as Metalopolis or XNC with wide open naturals), or even the natural development of Zerg's play with the systematisation of evos/spine/queens walls, etc. Yet strangely enough, all the easy Roaches coinflips Zerg still enjoys by now weren't patched; double standards as usual.
Banelings are not even the main actor in the Zerg side of the 4M scenario as lings/mutas do well against low Marines numbers below a huge Medivac count; Banelings are there to make sure Terran cannot simply keep 50+ Marines in a ball and massacre everything, but Zerg doesn't have to get tons of them. Roaches/Hydras has also no troubles handling mass Marines so I have absolutely no idea why you bring back up your eternal rant about the Marine being too strong.
I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
On October 16 2013 23:36 TheDwf wrote: The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
Nope. It's stale since Banelings are the only way to go in the midgame vs mass marines and since Mech is worse than before, mostly because of the Viper.
The core of the problem lies there: Terran has to go marine/medivac based because nothing else works. Zergs has to go banelings/mutalisk based because nothing else works. Then you add a few sidekick units to those core compositions and that's the whole transitionpath you get.
Edit: The queen patch did nothing but eliminate a fuckton of coinflips from the 2011/12 metagame and thereby revealing the balance problems of the matchup. (Terran having trouble in the lategame of WoL, after a balanced early/midgame)
As usual your analysis of the consequences of the Queen patch is off; how can you even fail to recognize the gigantic difference in creep surface by midgame (something which have major consequences for Tank-based play as Zerg ground units on creep can overwhelm Tanks so easily) when you can start your spread 4 minuts earlier, or simply the difference between having a free 6' third and having to fight for it by making either speedlings or a few Roaches? Not to mention virtually eliminating timings (HotS gave back one strong timing to Terran with Hellbats, but of course it was promptly relegated to oblivion with a quick stroke of the nerf hammer; how convenient) because they cannot reliably equalize anymore.
All of the attacks you refer to, Hellions/Marauders, 2 fact Hellions, etc., could have been easily shut down by the Overlord part of the patch alone (or even the HotS solution of overspeed at tier1), better maps (at the time there were still maps such as Metalopolis or XNC with wide open naturals), or even the natural development of Zerg's play with the systematisation of evos/spine/queens walls, etc. Yet strangely enough, all the easy Roaches coinflips Zerg still enjoys by now weren't patched; double standards as usual.
Banelings are not even the main actor in the Zerg side of the 4M scenario as lings/mutas do well against low Marines numbers below a huge Medivac count; Banelings are there to make sure Terran cannot simply keep 50+ Marines in a ball and massacre everything, but Zerg doesn't have to get tons of them. Roaches/Hydras has also no troubles handling mass Marines so I have absolutely no idea why you bring back up your eternal rant about the Marine being too strong.
I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
People don't do it because mutalingbane is just as good in a straight up fight but is more mobile and can harass. There is no tactical gain for using slower non-flying units the mutalingbane can fight straight up just as well.
What was TvZ like before the doompatch? I know triple-orbital banshee / hellion was quickly becoming the norm for Terran, but was the build variety stagnating? How viable were 2-base builds vs Zerg? I was only a shitty low-masters zerg that hardly played anything but zvp customs, so I didn't get to see too much.
There was things tried liek 2 fact BFH attacks ...... Hellion / Marauder pushes.......... but as zerg its really really ez to stop these pushes if scouted which Ovie sac so common you really can't hide much
On October 17 2013 04:48 PineapplePizza wrote: What was TvZ like before the doompatch? I know triple-orbital banshee / hellion was quickly becoming the norm for Terran, but was the build variety stagnating? How viable were 2-base builds vs Zerg? I was only a shitty low-masters zerg that hardly played anything but zvp customs, so I didn't get to see too much.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
It was fun to watch because of early game tension.
Zerg would use a combination of queens (to tank) and lings (to DPS) to protect spine crawlers that protected the creep tumors. SOme terrans made a LOT of hellions, some only made 2 and hence action started happening in the 3-4 minute mark even when both players were being greedy.
4 Range queens made it so this early game dynamic was gone and now we have all ins, 10 minute timings or 15 minute no-rush.
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote: I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unlock the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP as well maybe?
If an engineering bay is required, it cannot be used for bunker rushes. If the energy cost is 100, it cannot be used in all situations, and it's unlikely to be possible without 3 CC. But it would add a "I scouted a roach bust, let me get a neosteel bunker or 2." Don't know if it would actually help you hold it, though. As the HP of the bunker remain the same...
On the other hand, you could also use the drop to a) increase planetary SCV capacity by 5. I wonder if SCV's can repair from inside the planetary... Anyone ever tested this?
Conclusion: it's a very elegant solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist.
You can bunker rush, it is the same what we have. But with 50 or 100 energy you can put 2 supply more into your bunker, this rquired a engineering bay otherwise bunker rush is too stronk.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
The fact that no one won with this build as a standard in ZvT and no one does it anymore , tells even more about the style.
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote: I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unlock the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP as well maybe?
If an engineering bay is required, it cannot be used for bunker rushes. If the energy cost is 100, it cannot be used in all situations, and it's unlikely to be possible without 3 CC. But it would add a "I scouted a roach bust, let me get a neosteel bunker or 2." Don't know if it would actually help you hold it, though. As the HP of the bunker remain the same...
On the other hand, you could also use the drop to a) increase planetary SCV capacity by 5. I wonder if SCV's can repair from inside the planetary... Anyone ever tested this?
Conclusion: it's a very elegant solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist.
Rather than doing a change like that (which is situational at most!) seeing more terran players get such an upgrade would be cute. But what is the benefit of 6 marines over 4 against counterattacks? That's two more supply sitting static that is probably going to get blown up by banelings anyway ^^. It's more about careful management of your base defenses than a bunker change ^^.
As you said, ahaha, "elegant change to a problem that doesn't exist."
On October 17 2013 06:36 Ghanburighan wrote: I really like this idea:
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote: I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unlock the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP as well maybe?
If an engineering bay is required, it cannot be used for bunker rushes. If the energy cost is 100, it cannot be used in all situations, and it's unlikely to be possible without 3 CC. But it would add a "I scouted a roach bust, let me get a neosteel bunker or 2." Don't know if it would actually help you hold it, though. As the HP of the bunker remain the same...
On the other hand, you could also use the drop to a) increase planetary SCV capacity by 5. I wonder if SCV's can repair from inside the planetary... Anyone ever tested this?
Conclusion: it's a very elegant solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist.
Rather than doing a change like that (which is situational at most!) seeing more terran players get such an upgrade would be cute. But what is the benefit of 6 marines over 4 against counterattacks? That's two more supply sitting static that is probably going to get blown up by banelings anyway ^^. It's more about careful management of your base defenses than a bunker change ^^.
As you said, ahaha, "elegant change to a problem that doesn't exist."
I much prefer if Planetaries got their own spells "Neosteel Drop," "Point Tracking Drop," "+2 armor drop"
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
Depends on which side you are on. As a Zerg player, I definitely didn't enjoy seeing every second pro Zerg losing to a Bunker rush, or to random Hellion run-by.
Not saying that Queen patch was great, I think that they could've handled stuff the other way, but changes were needed.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
Depends on which side you are on. As a Zerg player, I definitely didn't enjoy seeing every second pro Zerg losing to a Bunker rush, or to random Hellion run-by.
Not saying that Queen patch was great, I think that they could've handled stuff the other way, but changes were needed.
4 range queens did not stop bunker rushes and hellion runbys....
Bunker rushes still hit too early and hellion runby were never stopped by queen.
Queen range specifically allowed a zerg to not have to make lings to protect early game creep spread. That's it.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
The fact that no one won with this build as a standard in ZvT and no one does it anymore , tells even more about the style.
Wut?
Mvp vs Tefel, Newkirk, WCS Europe Season 2 ForGG vs Nerchio, Derelict Watcher, WCS Europe Season 3 jjakji vs Minimath, Polar Night, ATC Qualifiers GuMiho vs DRG, Polar Night, Code S Mvp vs LiveZerg, Derelict Watcher, Igromir [Terran wins, but just another example to show that your "no one does it anymore" claim is wrong].
Roaches/Hydras is far from being standard, but it's stronger than what Zergs say, and the last 4 games mentioned are all recent.
On October 17 2013 06:36 Ghanburighan wrote: I really like this idea:
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote: I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unlock the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP as well maybe?
If an engineering bay is required, it cannot be used for bunker rushes. If the energy cost is 100, it cannot be used in all situations, and it's unlikely to be possible without 3 CC. But it would add a "I scouted a roach bust, let me get a neosteel bunker or 2." Don't know if it would actually help you hold it, though. As the HP of the bunker remain the same...
On the other hand, you could also use the drop to a) increase planetary SCV capacity by 5. I wonder if SCV's can repair from inside the planetary... Anyone ever tested this?
Conclusion: it's a very elegant solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist.
Rather than doing a change like that (which is situational at most!) seeing more terran players get such an upgrade would be cute. But what is the benefit of 6 marines over 4 against counterattacks? That's two more supply sitting static that is probably going to get blown up by banelings anyway ^^. It's more about careful management of your base defenses than a bunker change ^^.
As you said, ahaha, "elegant change to a problem that doesn't exist."
I much prefer if Planetaries got their own spells "Neosteel Drop," "Point Tracking Drop," "+2 armor drop"
Better yet, they have the energy to do the +2 armor drop immediately after completion ^^.
I'm going to play on the test map - see just how much the mine nerf changes parade pushes. Siege tank buff best for mech, I suppose!
On October 17 2013 06:36 Ghanburighan wrote: I really like this idea:
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote: I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unlock the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP as well maybe?
If an engineering bay is required, it cannot be used for bunker rushes. If the energy cost is 100, it cannot be used in all situations, and it's unlikely to be possible without 3 CC. But it would add a "I scouted a roach bust, let me get a neosteel bunker or 2." Don't know if it would actually help you hold it, though. As the HP of the bunker remain the same...
On the other hand, you could also use the drop to a) increase planetary SCV capacity by 5. I wonder if SCV's can repair from inside the planetary... Anyone ever tested this?
Conclusion: it's a very elegant solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist.
Rather than doing a change like that (which is situational at most!) seeing more terran players get such an upgrade would be cute. But what is the benefit of 6 marines over 4 against counterattacks? That's two more supply sitting static that is probably going to get blown up by banelings anyway ^^. It's more about careful management of your base defenses than a bunker change ^^.
As you said, ahaha, "elegant change to a problem that doesn't exist."
I much prefer if Planetaries got their own spells "Neosteel Drop," "Point Tracking Drop," "+2 armor drop"
Better yet, they have the energy to do the +2 armor drop immediately after completion ^^.
I'm going to play on the test map - see just how much the mine nerf changes parade pushes. Siege tank buff best for mech, I suppose!
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Just want to point out that TvZ actually became slightly more T favored the month after the range patch. While obviously a month's worth of statistics isn't a whole lot to go on, it at least lends credence to the possibility that the resulting strategic shift after the queen patch had more to do with it than the changes on the queen itself. I'd be curious to see whether the Z vs. T early game would play out that much differently right now if the queen range were suddenly reverted.
Also, as a side note, queen range increase DRASTICALLY improved the ZvZ matchup. Made the early game much more stable.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
The fact that no one won with this build as a standard in ZvT and no one does it anymore , tells even more about the style.
Wut?
Mvp vs Tefel, Newkirk, WCS Europe Season 2 ForGG vs Nerchio, Derelict Watcher, WCS Europe Season 3 jjakji vs Minimath, Polar Night, ATC Qualifiers GuMiho vs DRG, Polar Night, Code S Mvp vs LiveZerg, Derelict Watcher, Igromir [Terran wins, but just another example to show that your "no one does it anymore" claim is wrong].
Roaches/Hydras is far from being standard, but it's stronger than what Zergs say, and the last 4 games mentioned are all recent.
While it's used rarely, it's still pretty bad. Only time I ever see it work is when terran doesn't realize it's happening until to late. A good terran can abuse it so bad with drops and correct unit composition.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Reminds me of my work. No long term plans, fly by the seat of their pants, whatever sounds good that day goes...
Blizzard does not at all appear to have a long term plan for SC2. They certainly didn't with HOTS (let's add these awesome units called the Shedder, the Warhound and the Replicant!)... whichever way the wind blows is where SC2 goes...
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Reminds me of my work. No long term plans, fly by the seat of their pants, whatever sounds good that day goes...
Blizzard does not at all appear to have a long term plan for SC2. They certainly didn't with HOTS (let's add these awesome units called the Shedder, the Warhound and the Replicant!)... whichever way the wind blows is where SC2 goes...
The warhound not making it into the game was the best part of HotS development.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Reminds me of my work. No long term plans, fly by the seat of their pants, whatever sounds good that day goes...
Blizzard does not at all appear to have a long term plan for SC2. They certainly didn't with HOTS (let's add these awesome units called the Shedder, the Warhound and the Replicant!)... whichever way the wind blows is where SC2 goes...
The warhound not making it into the game was the best part of HotS development.
The original warhound (a halved thor) not making it into the game was the worst part of HOTS development. The later warhound (a mech marauder) not making it into the game was the best part of HOTS development.
Still to this day I dont know why they didn't go forward with their original idea or replacing the thor with something thats more accessible and less clunky and out of no where they decided that mech needed a super marauder in disguise.
On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote: All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore.
Reminds me of my work. No long term plans, fly by the seat of their pants, whatever sounds good that day goes...
Blizzard does not at all appear to have a long term plan for SC2. They certainly didn't with HOTS (let's add these awesome units called the Shedder, the Warhound and the Replicant!)... whichever way the wind blows is where SC2 goes...
The warhound not making it into the game was the best part of HotS development.
The original warhound (a halved thor) not making it into the game was the worst part of HOTS development. The later warhound (a mech marauder) not making it into the game was the best part of HOTS development.
Still to this day I dont know why they didn't go forward with their original idea or replacing the thor with something thats more accessible and less clunky and out of no where they decided that mech needed a super marauder in disguise.
My educated guess is that they felt uncomfortable with making the thor into another Mothership-style unit, when they had already planned on making the actual mothership into a goldleague roflship.
Something needed to fill the role of "shit that a-moves tanks" that every other race had, so they left the Thor as-is for anti-air, and reshaped the Warhound to fill their needs.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
Exactly. The marine got left untouched, despite Marine based strategies being the most used Terran strategies since the beta. While other strategies - like tankbased ones - are not viable currently, because those things were nerfed down so that tanks can't easily counter everything that's needed against marines. I believe it would have been better for the game if marines had gotten nerfed a tiny bit early on, instead of tanks for example. Like have Terran being forced to go for (stronger than now) tanks/ghosts in the midgame and marines as mineraldump, instead of "the unit you want to build".
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
Sorry, that's so double standards from somebody who claims that nothing is viable for Terran against Zerg apart from bio/mine. We see much more Mech and bio/tank play than roach/hydra play. Yet you claim roach/hydra is viable but Mech and bio/tank is not...
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
The best games of WoL happened in 2012/2013, so not really.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
if you were into roach ling baneling all in vs Terran getting third up faster than zerg/at least 6 kinds of difficult to scout all ins. then I guess you can say it was more entertaining lol
On October 17 2013 13:58 YyapSsap wrote: Still to this day I dont know why they didn't go forward with their original idea or replacing the thor with something thats more accessible and less clunky and out of no where they decided that mech needed a super marauder in disguise.
Because they wanted mech TvP to happen and it was clear that without mech counter to stalker/immortal it cannot work. That better anti-air role was supposed to be filled with mines.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
The fact that no one won with this build as a standard in ZvT and no one does it anymore , tells even more about the style.
Wut?
Mvp vs Tefel, Newkirk, WCS Europe Season 2 ForGG vs Nerchio, Derelict Watcher, WCS Europe Season 3 jjakji vs Minimath, Polar Night, ATC Qualifiers GuMiho vs DRG, Polar Night, Code S Mvp vs LiveZerg, Derelict Watcher, Igromir [Terran wins, but just another example to show that your "no one does it anymore" claim is wrong].
Roaches/Hydras is far from being standard, but it's stronger than what Zergs say, and the last 4 games mentioned are all recent.
As a standard build. No one is gonna made roach hydra most of ZvT. It's an okay build on some maps, on some occasion and against some opponent because no one expect it anymore (and for a good reason), that you can throw at your opponent to say "hey, look at me, I don't always do the same build". It's like saying mech is legit because flash or Gumiho won some game with it.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
Exactly. The marine got left untouched, despite Marine based strategies being the most used Terran strategies since the beta. While other strategies - like tankbased ones - are not viable currently, because those things were nerfed down so that tanks can't easily counter everything that's needed against marines. I believe it would have been better for the game if marines had gotten nerfed a tiny bit early on, instead of tanks for example. Like have Terran being forced to go for (stronger than now) tanks/ghosts in the midgame and marines as mineraldump, instead of "the unit you want to build".
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
Sorry, that's so double standards from somebody who claims that nothing is viable for Terran against Zerg apart from bio/mine. We see much more Mech and bio/tank play than roach/hydra play. Yet you claim roach/hydra is viable but Mech and bio/tank is not...
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
The best games of WoL happened in 2012/2013, so not really.
Kas is the only one that does Marine/Tank Flash is one of the most prominant meching players.
On October 17 2013 17:48 sM.Zik wrote: I, for one, is actually positive about the way Sc2 is going, a lot better than it was years ago, imo.
This. Cut Blizzard some damn slack, if you have made outstanding products in the past and now newer things don't seem as brilliant anymore for people Blizzard suddenly sucks...
Even though they made some terrible mistakes they tend to still do a superb job.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
Exactly. The marine got left untouched, despite Marine based strategies being the most used Terran strategies since the beta. While other strategies - like tankbased ones - are not viable currently, because those things were nerfed down so that tanks can't easily counter everything that's needed against marines. I believe it would have been better for the game if marines had gotten nerfed a tiny bit early on, instead of tanks for example. Like have Terran being forced to go for (stronger than now) tanks/ghosts in the midgame and marines as mineraldump, instead of "the unit you want to build".
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
Sorry, that's so double standards from somebody who claims that nothing is viable for Terran against Zerg apart from bio/mine. We see much more Mech and bio/tank play than roach/hydra play. Yet you claim roach/hydra is viable but Mech and bio/tank is not...
On October 17 2013 05:42 CakeSauc3 wrote:
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
The best games of WoL happened in 2012/2013, so not really.
Kas is the only one that does Marine/Tank Flash is one of the most prominant meching players.
Who else? Give games, don't just say stuff.
Gumiho, Jjakji, Bbyong all went for Mech this GSL. Bomber uses bio/tank occasionally. He tried it at least once this GSL (though from behind).
On the flipside we have that one roach/hydra game from DRG. --> we see much more Mech+bio/tank play than roach/hydra play. (Though when one of them is being opened, this often makes the opponent react with the other.)
And no, I don't think that bio/tank or Mech are strong playstyles either. My point is it's double standards claiming roach/hydra is viable while saying Mech and bio/tank are not. Neither gets played regularily.
I don't get why does the mine have to be the 1-hit big splash unit..
Why not make it like underground "turret" or sth, or even maybe something in between..
Why not just "divide" the 1-hit by another consecutive that happen few seconds one-after-another (already posted this)..
I already proposed that the upgraded mine to hold a capacity of 2 charges and keep the nerf of splash anyway.. That way at least the unit will be more "versatile" instead of just intended vs Ling/Bane clumps or Muta stack..
========================================================== The ways to do it is limitless..
The splash radius doesn't matter vs Protoss, since they have relatively high HP units, but rate-of-fire does matter.. Why don't they experiment with the unit a bit more anyways ?
Noone uses the damn thing in TvP anyways except for drops in the mineral line, and even more stupid is that if the other player just "ignores" it will have much more chances to get less punished instead of "drag the probes" to a place but being like 1 milisecond late at doing it..
Like - even if the WM keeps it's 1-hit slow-recharge mechanic - still - the hit could be more "clustered", like instead one huge rocket thing - hit 3 shrapnel clusters instead at random directions.. Or even keep the 1-rocket, but instead of killing a bunch of low-hp units beside it, make it cluster in 3 smaller shrapnels with a lot less splash radius than the one we have now, but a relatively high-single target damage.. That way - even with the "clustering" mechanic the focusing-micro reward would still remain, cause you could "set" where the initial "impact" will take place..
Like there are tons of ways to make the unit more useful in TvP and less "game-changing" in TvZ.. Like that way you'd see mines hit like 10 banelings at most, or maybe 15-ish, but not 30.. And also it would be able for example to take-out 3 Zealots for a change, or at least severely hurt them..
I mean - if you design a unit to have it's DPS being splash - you severely hurt the Zerg and Bio, and if you make the main DPS source of a unit being it's rate-of-fire - then you hurt the "big-shots" instead..
I don't get it, why does it have to be so much splash-oriented unit as if that was the only DPS source a ground "trap" unit could have..
========================================================== Like there are Tons and Tons and Tons of ways to make it, that's why test-maps are there after all, aren't they.. ?
Often get the "perception" that the changes never get enough "variant-tested" if you know what i mean ?
I don't get why the unit has to have a "single-role" and be vs Bane/Ling/Muta clumps intended instead of it being more versatile overall.. It's almost as if - Blizzard thinks that Marines aren't good vs "lots of small units" and relatively good vs everything else..
So that way the mines need to take care only of those, and therefore provide the Marines to do it's damage after.. Ofc a small note - by Marines I think of carefully-grouped MMM clusters (like even combined - they end up doing the same the Marine would)
========================================================== Like - I got hugely amazed but also kinda pissed that the exact moment the unit was created it didn't have like any change in the final version and got launched in the game.. From even day1 it was hugely obvious that it won't do anything vs Protoss (except luckily kill a lot of Probes if the other player "risks" to save them) but will just destroy Zerg all over.. A different story is whether the Zerg will know how to "minimize" that.. And in all honesty - that's what I always mostly hate - designed units vs only 1-race..
Not to say what happens after that when people start discussing which is the "hard' race, which is a-move, which is the "master" race, and such things.. Like - 1 too hard and 1 too hard for the opponent matchup - doesn't make a good atmosphere, unless you prefer to "encourage" "uneven" ground or sth..
Now whether you'll be able to drop at 3 places at once, or being able to send 1 linear wave after another with a precise interval of 1.5 sec between them or not and have a higher success is a different matter, shouldn't be the only one option available for success.. Like - those are bonuses..
So yah - the good thing is that it's finally identified that the WM is a problem, just - need to test it more how to fix that
And I don't think it will "dumb-out" the game, but will put more even ground at the ZvT and TvP matchups instead
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
with the combined mech upgrades mech has an easier time to deal with air switches.
yes, and for early game AA i think this can be fixed if turrets don't need an ebay to be built.
I think the regeneration could be weaker, just so thor and widow mine shots actually force the mutalisks away for longer than half a minute. Normal regeneration is about 1 hit point every 4 seconds. Mutalisks get 1 hit point every 1 second. It's four times as powerful, for a race that already has queens. It allows you to do whatever with your mutalisk flock and never get punished.
On October 18 2013 00:20 Grumbels wrote: I think the regeneration could be weaker, just so thor and widow mine shots actually force the mutalisks away for longer than half a minute. Normal regeneration is about 1 hit point every 4 seconds. Mutalisks get 1 hit point every 1 second. It's four times as powerful, for a race that already has queens. It allows you to do whatever with your mutalisk flock and never get punished.
If you want to nerf Spire, then buff other tier2 options: Nydus, Hydralisks or Infestors/Swarm Hosts.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
Exactly. The marine got left untouched, despite Marine based strategies being the most used Terran strategies since the beta. While other strategies - like tankbased ones - are not viable currently, because those things were nerfed down so that tanks can't easily counter everything that's needed against marines. I believe it would have been better for the game if marines had gotten nerfed a tiny bit early on, instead of tanks for example. Like have Terran being forced to go for (stronger than now) tanks/ghosts in the midgame and marines as mineraldump, instead of "the unit you want to build".
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
Sorry, that's so double standards from somebody who claims that nothing is viable for Terran against Zerg apart from bio/mine. We see much more Mech and bio/tank play than roach/hydra play. Yet you claim roach/hydra is viable but Mech and bio/tank is not...
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
The best games of WoL happened in 2012/2013, so not really.
I would say PvX has gotten a lot better in HotS. ZvT has definitely devolved. TvT is probably the same? ZvZ probably got worse.
On October 18 2013 00:20 Grumbels wrote: I think the regeneration could be weaker, just so thor and widow mine shots actually force the mutalisks away for longer than half a minute. Normal regeneration is about 1 hit point every 4 seconds. Mutalisks get 1 hit point every 1 second. It's four times as powerful, for a race that already has queens. It allows you to do whatever with your mutalisk flock and never get punished.
If you want to nerf Spire, then buff other tier2 options: Nydus, Hydralisks or Infestors/Swarm Hosts.
Why? Spire is way more powerful than the other options at the moment. It's more sensible to ever so slightly nerf the mutalisk (which received strong buffs in HotS even though it was mostly fine before) in order to improve the TvZ and PvZ match-ups, rather than hand out many counter buffs randomly. Especially if widow mines are made weaker.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
Point is that I don't want my units to only have "that one role" in theory. If we start nerfing down mines "because noone is ever using them against Protoss/Terran anyways" we might as well just remove all the units that are not being used from the game at all once you get matched up against a certain race. "Well, you got Protoss. So you can't even build anything from the factory, you don't need it anyways and it's so much easier to balance everything when hellion runbies are not even possible."
Point is that mines as they are are not a very useful unit to begin with if you don't happen to play against MLB. So why take that little bit of utility away as well?
If mutalisk regeneration were to become a problem which means one of two things: - mutalisk strategies become imbalanced - mutalisk strategies prevent too many enemy options then the solution is to nerf them and/or buff their counters.
Currently I don't see either. *Maybe* they are a little limiting to protoss gameplay because you often need phoenixes to deal with them. Yet I don't think we see Protoss being limited to phoenix strategies, so I don't think that it makes the matchup worse/less diverse.
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
Exactly. The marine got left untouched, despite Marine based strategies being the most used Terran strategies since the beta. While other strategies - like tankbased ones - are not viable currently, because those things were nerfed down so that tanks can't easily counter everything that's needed against marines. I believe it would have been better for the game if marines had gotten nerfed a tiny bit early on, instead of tanks for example. Like have Terran being forced to go for (stronger than now) tanks/ghosts in the midgame and marines as mineraldump, instead of "the unit you want to build".
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
Sorry, that's so double standards from somebody who claims that nothing is viable for Terran against Zerg apart from bio/mine. We see much more Mech and bio/tank play than roach/hydra play. Yet you claim roach/hydra is viable but Mech and bio/tank is not...
On October 17 2013 05:42 CakeSauc3 wrote:
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
The best games of WoL happened in 2012/2013, so not really.
I would say PvX has gotten a lot better in HotS. ZvT has definitely devolved. TvT is probably the same? ZvZ probably got worse.
WHAT??? pvt has gotten better? the MSC has destroyed the matchup. terran can't punish a protoss who plays greedy and can't compete with them in lategame. so every pvt is 13 minute passive macro into scv pull. do you really think that's better?
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
Exactly. The marine got left untouched, despite Marine based strategies being the most used Terran strategies since the beta. While other strategies - like tankbased ones - are not viable currently, because those things were nerfed down so that tanks can't easily counter everything that's needed against marines. I believe it would have been better for the game if marines had gotten nerfed a tiny bit early on, instead of tanks for example. Like have Terran being forced to go for (stronger than now) tanks/ghosts in the midgame and marines as mineraldump, instead of "the unit you want to build".
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
Sorry, that's so double standards from somebody who claims that nothing is viable for Terran against Zerg apart from bio/mine. We see much more Mech and bio/tank play than roach/hydra play. Yet you claim roach/hydra is viable but Mech and bio/tank is not...
On October 17 2013 05:42 CakeSauc3 wrote:
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote: Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
The best games of WoL happened in 2012/2013, so not really.
I would say PvX has gotten a lot better in HotS. ZvT has definitely devolved. TvT is probably the same? ZvZ probably got worse.
WHAT??? pvt has gotten better? the MSC has destroyed the matchup. terran can't punish a protoss who plays greedy and can't compete with them in lategame. so every pvt is 13 minute passive macro into scv pull. do you really think that's better?
In terms of variation, Oracle and Void gained viability. Terran gained WM and Reaper. They're all pretty limited in scope, but I'll admit PvT saw the least improvement of the PvX.
On October 18 2013 00:31 The_best32 wrote: WHAT??? pvt has gotten better? the MSC has destroyed the matchup. terran can't punish a protoss who plays greedy and can't compete with them in lategame. so every pvt is 13 minute passive macro into scv pull. do you really think that's better?
You forgot the part where any T who is slighly behind can just base race because TURBOVACS and win or draw.
On October 18 2013 00:31 The_best32 wrote: WHAT??? pvt has gotten better? the MSC has destroyed the matchup. terran can't punish a protoss who plays greedy and can't compete with them in lategame. so every pvt is 13 minute passive macro into scv pull. do you really think that's better?
You forgot the part where any T who is slighly behind can just base race because TURBOVACS and win or draw.
See Happy vs. Stardust. WCS EU.
We both know it doesn't work that way, both of you are speaking in hyperbole and it brings us nowhere.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
Nowadays micro from the Zerg side and understanding of the Widow Mines mechanics really doesn't show us a lot of situations in which 'lucky' blasts change the game.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
Nowadays micro from the Zerg side and understanding of the Widow Mines mechanics really doesn't show us a lot of situations in which 'lucky' blasts change the game.
IDK mate, not sure about that..
True that Zergs know how to "slow-down" the push without risking too much chances, but still - the unit has some situations that still do the "lucky blasts"..
Like take mineral-line drops for example (usually happens vs Protoss this one).. When the opponent sees the mine burrowing in the mineral line and pulls workers - when being like half-a-second too late - it's even better as if he ignored it completely.. So TBH - IDK about you, but I really dislike that..
Still think that it's like by far better if the splash blob was "clustered" with more primary targets.. That way the unit might get some usage vs Protoss as well..
And after all - why even change the unit if things "got better" ?
You do sometimes get lucky blasts but for the most part the matchup comes down to skill.
Mines will continue to suck against protoss mainly because the only units they get to hit (excluding mine drops of course) are the zealots at the front and trading gas for zealots like that is generally a poor proposition. if you're that worried about zealots, make hellbats! or just suck less with bio. There are some small unique situations where mines can be nifty, vs gateway pushes of almost any kind, and in a plcae where you think stalkers might blink onto and with the occasional drop harassment or cheese but it's generally difficult to use them in normal macro play.
For TvP I would be interested to see if a change to feedback such that it could only affect Biological units (so ghosts, everything zerg and basically not banshees ravens and bc's and PDD's). I wonder if that would encourage different compositions in a somewhat stale matchup (well, stale for terran anyway!)
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
Nowadays micro from the Zerg side and understanding of the Widow Mines mechanics really doesn't show us a lot of situations in which 'lucky' blasts change the game.
IDK mate, not sure about that..
True that Zergs know how to "slow-down" the push without risking too much chances, but still - the unit has some situations that still do the "lucky blasts"..
Like take mineral-line drops for example (usually happens vs Protoss this one).. When the opponent sees the mine burrowing in the mineral line and pulls workers - when being like half-a-second too late - it's even better as if he ignored it completely.. So TBH - IDK about you, but I really dislike that..
Still think that it's like by far better if the splash blob was "clustered" with more primary targets.. That way the unit might get some usage vs Protoss as well..
And after all - why even change the unit if things "got better" ?
YOu don't like a unit that is strong when not microed against but can be microed against thereby discouraging lazy play?
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
Nowadays micro from the Zerg side and understanding of the Widow Mines mechanics really doesn't show us a lot of situations in which 'lucky' blasts change the game.
IDK mate, not sure about that..
True that Zergs know how to "slow-down" the push without risking too much chances, but still - the unit has some situations that still do the "lucky blasts"..
Like take mineral-line drops for example (usually happens vs Protoss this one).. When the opponent sees the mine burrowing in the mineral line and pulls workers - when being like half-a-second too late - it's even better as if he ignored it completely.. So TBH - IDK about you, but I really dislike that..
Still think that it's like by far better if the splash blob was "clustered" with more primary targets.. That way the unit might get some usage vs Protoss as well..
And after all - why even change the unit if things "got better" ?
YOu don't like a unit that is strong when not microed against but can be microed against thereby discouraging lazy play?
Actually it's the exact opposite and you know that.. Mines kill zillion workers only by luck when the opponent is trying to move them away but being half-a-second too late instead of when just ignoring (or even not noticing) them
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
Nowadays micro from the Zerg side and understanding of the Widow Mines mechanics really doesn't show us a lot of situations in which 'lucky' blasts change the game.
IDK mate, not sure about that..
True that Zergs know how to "slow-down" the push without risking too much chances, but still - the unit has some situations that still do the "lucky blasts"..
Like take mineral-line drops for example (usually happens vs Protoss this one).. When the opponent sees the mine burrowing in the mineral line and pulls workers - when being like half-a-second too late - it's even better as if he ignored it completely.. So TBH - IDK about you, but I really dislike that..
Still think that it's like by far better if the splash blob was "clustered" with more primary targets.. That way the unit might get some usage vs Protoss as well..
And after all - why even change the unit if things "got better" ?
YOu don't like a unit that is strong when not microed against but can be microed against thereby discouraging lazy play?
Actually it's the exact opposite and you know that.. Mines kill zillion workers only by luck when the opponent is trying to move them away but being half-a-second too late instead of when just ignoring (or even not noticing) them
Widow Mines have their problems for sure, but none of their problems have anything to do with bad execution from the opponent. Lots of things punishes you for being a half second too late. Marine v Banelings, Scourge v Muta, Anything v Reavers, etc...
If something is hard to stop--but is fair/neutered when microed against, that is a good thing.
You currently are trapped into a folly a lot of people make where they *feel* something is wrong and instead of actually looking at what is wrong they simply describe what they immediately see and believe that that is the problem. The one thing Widow Mines have done right is be ridiculously strong when not microed against, but incredibly docile when microed against. If more SC2 units were that volatile then we'd be back to the days of BW that people keep asking about.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
with the combined mech upgrades mech has an easier time to deal with air switches.
yes, and for early game AA i think this can be fixed if turrets don't need an ebay to be built.
I assure you, if you get caught not instantly scouting the air transition, those 5 +3 vikings you have don't make the difference.
Turrets are not effective Anti Air, you need 2/3 to cover a mineral line fully, Oracle, VoidRay, Banshee etc outrange. There's probably a more elegant solution ;-)!
On October 18 2013 03:37 iaguz wrote: You do sometimes get lucky blasts but for the most part the matchup comes down to skill.
Mines will continue to suck against protoss mainly because the only units they get to hit (excluding mine drops of course) are the zealots at the front and trading gas for zealots like that is generally a poor proposition. if you're that worried about zealots, make hellbats! or just suck less with bio. There are some small unique situations where mines can be nifty, vs gateway pushes of almost any kind, and in a plcae where you think stalkers might blink onto and with the occasional drop harassment or cheese but it's generally difficult to use them in normal macro play.
For TvP I would be interested to see if a change to feedback such that it could only affect Biological units (so ghosts, everything zerg and basically not banshees ravens and bc's and PDD's). I wonder if that would encourage different compositions in a somewhat stale matchup (well, stale for terran anyway!)
On the other hand, there's Thors, Medivacs, Phoenix, Sentry, Oracles, MotherShipCore and Mothership are also not affected, at least a couple of those should be feedbackable.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
Nowadays micro from the Zerg side and understanding of the Widow Mines mechanics really doesn't show us a lot of situations in which 'lucky' blasts change the game.
IDK mate, not sure about that..
True that Zergs know how to "slow-down" the push without risking too much chances, but still - the unit has some situations that still do the "lucky blasts"..
Like take mineral-line drops for example (usually happens vs Protoss this one).. When the opponent sees the mine burrowing in the mineral line and pulls workers - when being like half-a-second too late - it's even better as if he ignored it completely.. So TBH - IDK about you, but I really dislike that..
Still think that it's like by far better if the splash blob was "clustered" with more primary targets.. That way the unit might get some usage vs Protoss as well..
And after all - why even change the unit if things "got better" ?
YOu don't like a unit that is strong when not microed against but can be microed against thereby discouraging lazy play?
Well, the Zerg has to micro.. but the Terran just has to have a burrowed widow mine that takes 0 APM to use. So it discourages lazy play from Zerg but also has no requirement for the Terran to do anything either. I don't think this argument is valid.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
with the combined mech upgrades mech has an easier time to deal with air switches.
yes, and for early game AA i think this can be fixed if turrets don't need an ebay to be built.
I assure you, if you get caught not instantly scouting the air transition, those 5 +3 vikings you have don't make the difference.
Turrets are not effective Anti Air, you need 2/3 to cover a mineral line fully, Oracle, VoidRay, Banshee etc outrange. There's probably a more elegant solution ;-)!
On October 18 2013 03:37 iaguz wrote: You do sometimes get lucky blasts but for the most part the matchup comes down to skill.
Mines will continue to suck against protoss mainly because the only units they get to hit (excluding mine drops of course) are the zealots at the front and trading gas for zealots like that is generally a poor proposition. if you're that worried about zealots, make hellbats! or just suck less with bio. There are some small unique situations where mines can be nifty, vs gateway pushes of almost any kind, and in a plcae where you think stalkers might blink onto and with the occasional drop harassment or cheese but it's generally difficult to use them in normal macro play.
For TvP I would be interested to see if a change to feedback such that it could only affect Biological units (so ghosts, everything zerg and basically not banshees ravens and bc's and PDD's). I wonder if that would encourage different compositions in a somewhat stale matchup (well, stale for terran anyway!)
On the other hand, there's Thors, Medivacs, Phoenix, Sentry, Oracles, MotherShipCore and Mothership are also not affected, at least a couple of those should be feedbackable.
No feedback on Ravens or Banshees is quasi game breaking. Mass PDD + Banshee is really hard to stop as P.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
Nowadays micro from the Zerg side and understanding of the Widow Mines mechanics really doesn't show us a lot of situations in which 'lucky' blasts change the game.
IDK mate, not sure about that..
True that Zergs know how to "slow-down" the push without risking too much chances, but still - the unit has some situations that still do the "lucky blasts"..
Like take mineral-line drops for example (usually happens vs Protoss this one).. When the opponent sees the mine burrowing in the mineral line and pulls workers - when being like half-a-second too late - it's even better as if he ignored it completely.. So TBH - IDK about you, but I really dislike that..
Still think that it's like by far better if the splash blob was "clustered" with more primary targets.. That way the unit might get some usage vs Protoss as well..
And after all - why even change the unit if things "got better" ?
YOu don't like a unit that is strong when not microed against but can be microed against thereby discouraging lazy play?
Well, the Zerg has to micro.. but the Terran just has to have a burrowed widow mine that takes 0 APM to use. So it discourages lazy play from Zerg but also has no requirement for the Terran to do anything either. I don't think this argument is valid.
Burrow/Unburrow control is actually something that splits top terran players from each other because that is the only way to counteract zerg splits. Its no different than siege tank target firing.
But lets pretend that terrans don't micro widowmines, just for shits and giggles. Even if that were the case, which it isn't, but lets say that somehow your delusion is real about that. Are you making the argument that terrans don''t have enough stuff to micro? Are you saying that there aren't threads right now of people whining (wrongfully so) that terran is the hardest race?
Like I said to the guy above me, Widow mines have a lot of problems. Needing to micro is not one of them.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
with the combined mech upgrades mech has an easier time to deal with air switches.
yes, and for early game AA i think this can be fixed if turrets don't need an ebay to be built.
I assure you, if you get caught not instantly scouting the air transition, those 5 +3 vikings you have don't make the difference.
Turrets are not effective Anti Air, you need 2/3 to cover a mineral line fully, Oracle, VoidRay, Banshee etc outrange. There's probably a more elegant solution ;-)!
On October 18 2013 03:37 iaguz wrote: You do sometimes get lucky blasts but for the most part the matchup comes down to skill.
Mines will continue to suck against protoss mainly because the only units they get to hit (excluding mine drops of course) are the zealots at the front and trading gas for zealots like that is generally a poor proposition. if you're that worried about zealots, make hellbats! or just suck less with bio. There are some small unique situations where mines can be nifty, vs gateway pushes of almost any kind, and in a plcae where you think stalkers might blink onto and with the occasional drop harassment or cheese but it's generally difficult to use them in normal macro play.
For TvP I would be interested to see if a change to feedback such that it could only affect Biological units (so ghosts, everything zerg and basically not banshees ravens and bc's and PDD's). I wonder if that would encourage different compositions in a somewhat stale matchup (well, stale for terran anyway!)
On the other hand, there's Thors, Medivacs, Phoenix, Sentry, Oracles, MotherShipCore and Mothership are also not affected, at least a couple of those should be feedbackable.
No feedback on Ravens or Banshees is quasi game breaking. Mass PDD + Banshee is really hard to stop as P.
they tried to remove energy from BCs as well and that caused a number of issues back in WoL but then again void rays were different then too.
On October 18 2013 07:37 DinoMight wrote: Well, the Zerg has to micro.. but the Terran just has to have a burrowed widow mine that takes 0 APM to use. So it discourages lazy play from Zerg but also has no requirement for the Terran to do anything either. I don't think this argument is valid.
Have you any idea how many clicks/time it takes to spread numerous Mines so that Banelings don't kill them before they trigger? Just because the micro is done before the fight doesn't mean there is "0 apm" to use Mines.
On October 18 2013 07:40 DinoMight wrote: No feedback on Ravens or Banshees is quasi game breaking. Mass PDD + Banshee is really hard to stop as P.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
with the combined mech upgrades mech has an easier time to deal with air switches.
yes, and for early game AA i think this can be fixed if turrets don't need an ebay to be built.
I assure you, if you get caught not instantly scouting the air transition, those 5 +3 vikings you have don't make the difference.
Turrets are not effective Anti Air, you need 2/3 to cover a mineral line fully, Oracle, VoidRay, Banshee etc outrange. There's probably a more elegant solution ;-)!
On October 18 2013 03:37 iaguz wrote: You do sometimes get lucky blasts but for the most part the matchup comes down to skill.
Mines will continue to suck against protoss mainly because the only units they get to hit (excluding mine drops of course) are the zealots at the front and trading gas for zealots like that is generally a poor proposition. if you're that worried about zealots, make hellbats! or just suck less with bio. There are some small unique situations where mines can be nifty, vs gateway pushes of almost any kind, and in a plcae where you think stalkers might blink onto and with the occasional drop harassment or cheese but it's generally difficult to use them in normal macro play.
For TvP I would be interested to see if a change to feedback such that it could only affect Biological units (so ghosts, everything zerg and basically not banshees ravens and bc's and PDD's). I wonder if that would encourage different compositions in a somewhat stale matchup (well, stale for terran anyway!)
On the other hand, there's Thors, Medivacs, Phoenix, Sentry, Oracles, MotherShipCore and Mothership are also not affected, at least a couple of those should be feedbackable.
No feedback on Ravens or Banshees is quasi game breaking. Mass PDD + Banshee is really hard to stop as P.
they tried to remove energy from BCs as well and that caused a number of issues back in WoL but then again void rays were different then too.
I think BC's are a lot sexier when templars can't zap them for 100-149 damage
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
with the combined mech upgrades mech has an easier time to deal with air switches.
yes, and for early game AA i think this can be fixed if turrets don't need an ebay to be built.
I assure you, if you get caught not instantly scouting the air transition, those 5 +3 vikings you have don't make the difference.
Turrets are not effective Anti Air, you need 2/3 to cover a mineral line fully, Oracle, VoidRay, Banshee etc outrange. There's probably a more elegant solution ;-)!
On October 18 2013 03:37 iaguz wrote: You do sometimes get lucky blasts but for the most part the matchup comes down to skill.
Mines will continue to suck against protoss mainly because the only units they get to hit (excluding mine drops of course) are the zealots at the front and trading gas for zealots like that is generally a poor proposition. if you're that worried about zealots, make hellbats! or just suck less with bio. There are some small unique situations where mines can be nifty, vs gateway pushes of almost any kind, and in a plcae where you think stalkers might blink onto and with the occasional drop harassment or cheese but it's generally difficult to use them in normal macro play.
For TvP I would be interested to see if a change to feedback such that it could only affect Biological units (so ghosts, everything zerg and basically not banshees ravens and bc's and PDD's). I wonder if that would encourage different compositions in a somewhat stale matchup (well, stale for terran anyway!)
On the other hand, there's Thors, Medivacs, Phoenix, Sentry, Oracles, MotherShipCore and Mothership are also not affected, at least a couple of those should be feedbackable.
No feedback on Ravens or Banshees is quasi game breaking. Mass PDD + Banshee is really hard to stop as P.
they tried to remove energy from BCs as well and that caused a number of issues back in WoL but then again void rays were different then too.
They also wouldn't remove energy from Thors until HotS. Turned out it didn't make any difference to speak of.
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
Cluster up a bit of the WM attack splash instead of one big "blob" of spash - make them hit first target and cluster on 3 smaller "blobs" instead.. If that proves to be too weak vs Ling/Bane, then just add up another charge that comes up 5 seconds after the first..
That's what I think the unit would work, instead of risk changing everything else in the game..
Nowadays micro from the Zerg side and understanding of the Widow Mines mechanics really doesn't show us a lot of situations in which 'lucky' blasts change the game.
IDK mate, not sure about that..
True that Zergs know how to "slow-down" the push without risking too much chances, but still - the unit has some situations that still do the "lucky blasts"..
Like take mineral-line drops for example (usually happens vs Protoss this one).. When the opponent sees the mine burrowing in the mineral line and pulls workers - when being like half-a-second too late - it's even better as if he ignored it completely.. So TBH - IDK about you, but I really dislike that..
Still think that it's like by far better if the splash blob was "clustered" with more primary targets.. That way the unit might get some usage vs Protoss as well..
And after all - why even change the unit if things "got better" ?
YOu don't like a unit that is strong when not microed against but can be microed against thereby discouraging lazy play?
Well, the Zerg has to micro.. but the Terran just has to have a burrowed widow mine that takes 0 APM to use. So it discourages lazy play from Zerg but also has no requirement for the Terran to do anything either. I don't think this argument is valid.
If you stop looking at mines vs the Zerg army in a vacuum, it helps. Because the set up is important, because microing marines/marauder against a giant Zergling ball is important, because splitting is important. This is why TvZ as a concept is awesome. Just look at games today from Polt vs Byul in WCS America. He had some pretty amazing Zergling control where mines did ABSOLUTELY nothing and hurt the Terran more and times when Polt had some great spread on mines and landed some pretty good hits. That's what makes a MU good.
The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
I have to say there is some truth in this. I myself play mech and what I have learnt through my way up to master league is that you absolutely can't attack, because Zerg's production is absolutely out of control since the Queen patch. So the only way to play mech is to turtle. Yesterday I was playing Zerg that has 7RR me with expo backup, I defended with no loses, proceed to get 3rd CC + 2 Armories, secure my third and push out at like 150 supply at about 13/14 minut mark. I got absolutely swarmed with mass units and I couldn't even make it to one of his bases, but I traded at least decently and managed to get my 3/3 and 170//180 army supply back. His 800 drones then managed to get enough resources to make 500 Ultras within 2-3 minuts and he just killed me. We are not even talking about Vipers or Swarm Hosts here. After this game, I promised myself to NEVER EVER attack again and I'm gonna turtle the fuck out of every Zerg I play until they just leave. Sorry, not my fault. :-)
On October 17 2013 22:57 The_best32 wrote: what about removing muta regen but let wms only attack ground?
then who would use mutas against Protoss or Zerg? what role would WMs have at all apart from killing banes?
muta switches would still be strong enough vs protoss. and if the muta is nerfed the wm doesn't need another role apart from killing lings and banes.
You do however remove the emergency Anti Air Mech needs sometimes to deal with sudden air switches, you also lose a lot of strategical application such as baiting with overlords/overseers. The Widow Mine is a early teching Terrans best defence against Oracles too and plays a pretty big zoning role vs Banshees.
with the combined mech upgrades mech has an easier time to deal with air switches.
yes, and for early game AA i think this can be fixed if turrets don't need an ebay to be built.
I assure you, if you get caught not instantly scouting the air transition, those 5 +3 vikings you have don't make the difference.
Turrets are not effective Anti Air, you need 2/3 to cover a mineral line fully, Oracle, VoidRay, Banshee etc outrange. There's probably a more elegant solution ;-)!
On October 18 2013 03:37 iaguz wrote: You do sometimes get lucky blasts but for the most part the matchup comes down to skill.
Mines will continue to suck against protoss mainly because the only units they get to hit (excluding mine drops of course) are the zealots at the front and trading gas for zealots like that is generally a poor proposition. if you're that worried about zealots, make hellbats! or just suck less with bio. There are some small unique situations where mines can be nifty, vs gateway pushes of almost any kind, and in a plcae where you think stalkers might blink onto and with the occasional drop harassment or cheese but it's generally difficult to use them in normal macro play.
For TvP I would be interested to see if a change to feedback such that it could only affect Biological units (so ghosts, everything zerg and basically not banshees ravens and bc's and PDD's). I wonder if that would encourage different compositions in a somewhat stale matchup (well, stale for terran anyway!)
On the other hand, there's Thors, Medivacs, Phoenix, Sentry, Oracles, MotherShipCore and Mothership are also not affected, at least a couple of those should be feedbackable.
No feedback on Ravens or Banshees is quasi game breaking. Mass PDD + Banshee is really hard to stop as P.
Against a mass Raven Banshee build you DO NOT want to have Stalkers regardless. Archons, Storm, Carriers, Void Rays, Sentry all fullfill a purpose against those units.
While they should leave feedback alone, blink stalkers do fine against mass PDD + Banshee. Yeah in theory it should counter blink stalkers, in practise my money is on the stalkers everytime since they simply outproduce the ravens/banshees. The question is more which toss composition does not counter it? (Answer: immortal, colossi, zealot + sentry army, which is fairly stupid to make against mass air).
Also you can add phoenix to that list. Sure PDD stops their shots, but only autoturrets can shoot back, and the second PDD is down the phoenix rip through everything.
The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
I have to say there is some truth in this. I myself play mech and what I have learnt through my way up to master league is that you absolutely can't attack, because Zerg's production is absolutely out of control since the Queen patch. So the only way to play mech is to turtle. Yesterday I was playing Zerg that has 7RR me with expo backup, I defended with no loses, proceed to get 3rd CC + 2 Armories, secure my third and push out at like 150 supply at about 13/14 minut mark. I got absolutely swarmed with mass units and I couldn't even make it to one of his bases, but I traded at least decently and managed to get my 3/3 and 170//180 army supply back. His 800 drones then managed to get enough resources to make 500 Ultras within 2-3 minuts and he just killed me. We are not even talking about Vipers or Swarm Hosts here. After this game, I promised myself to NEVER EVER attack again and I'm gonna turtle the fuck out of every Zerg I play until they just leave. Sorry, not my fault. :-)
Sorry, we were talking about competitive play here, not Big Game Hunters (No Unit Limit).
The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
I have to say there is some truth in this. I myself play mech and what I have learnt through my way up to master league is that you absolutely can't attack, because Zerg's production is absolutely out of control since the Queen patch. So the only way to play mech is to turtle. Yesterday I was playing Zerg that has 7RR me with expo backup, I defended with no loses, proceed to get 3rd CC + 2 Armories, secure my third and push out at like 150 supply at about 13/14 minut mark. I got absolutely swarmed with mass units and I couldn't even make it to one of his bases, but I traded at least decently and managed to get my 3/3 and 170//180 army supply back. His 800 drones then managed to get enough resources to make 500 Ultras within 2-3 minuts and he just killed me. We are not even talking about Vipers or Swarm Hosts here. After this game, I promised myself to NEVER EVER attack again and I'm gonna turtle the fuck out of every Zerg I play until they just leave. Sorry, not my fault. :-)
Sorry, we were talking about competitive play here, not Big Game Hunters (No Unit Limit).
But but.. Mom, you told me I'm allowed to discuss on internet with other people.. My world is crushed now. Russia so stronk, soooo stronk.. Will you be my new Mom?
With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
If you find yourself in a position to make such a switch then I guarantee that you can just kill him with bio. Only time mech is viable is the time where you are ahead and will win regardless of composition.
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
If you find yourself in a position to make such a switch then I guarantee that you can just kill him with bio. Only time mech is viable is the time where you are ahead and will win regardless of composition.
You're probably right, so maybe either only on maps where its possible to turtle (e.g Akilon) or transition slowly (e.g. gradually replace marines with thors, etc).
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
It really is not good against tempest HT at all.
Point defense drone and tempest is useless
It's been tried - it doesn't work. Tempests always allow to spoon terran far more efficiently than a mass of ravens ever will. And even if it didn't that's still a bad strategy. No only does it make for a boring game that can try anyones patience but you'd need to somehow survive the early and mid-game as well.
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
It really is not good against tempest HT at all.
Point defense drone and tempest is useless
HT can feedback PDDs.
Cloack ghost snipe obs , snipe hts gg
you can do this all day, there's no point in listing counters and counters. Tempest vs PDD is useless because PDD will run out of energy fast if there's a decent number of Tempest's and you don't even have to engage there.
The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes.
I have to say there is some truth in this. I myself play mech and what I have learnt through my way up to master league is that you absolutely can't attack, because Zerg's production is absolutely out of control since the Queen patch. So the only way to play mech is to turtle. Yesterday I was playing Zerg that has 7RR me with expo backup, I defended with no loses, proceed to get 3rd CC + 2 Armories, secure my third and push out at like 150 supply at about 13/14 minut mark. I got absolutely swarmed with mass units and I couldn't even make it to one of his bases, but I traded at least decently and managed to get my 3/3 and 170//180 army supply back. His 800 drones then managed to get enough resources to make 500 Ultras within 2-3 minuts and he just killed me. We are not even talking about Vipers or Swarm Hosts here. After this game, I promised myself to NEVER EVER attack again and I'm gonna turtle the fuck out of every Zerg I play until they just leave. Sorry, not my fault. :-)
Sorry, we were talking about competitive play here, not Big Game Hunters (No Unit Limit).
But but.. Mom, you told me I'm allowed to discuss on internet with other people.. My world is crushed now. Russia so stronk, soooo stronk.. Will you be my new Mom?
There is already one Mother Russia. I will just note that if your opponent has 800 drones and 500 ultras at any point in game, you are not playing melee games, and balance is irrelevant to you
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
It really is not good against tempest HT at all.
Point defense drone and tempest is useless
HT can feedback PDDs.
Cloack ghost snipe obs , snipe hts gg
you can do this all day, there's no point in listing counters and counters. Tempest vs PDD is useless because PDD will run out of energy fast if there's a decent number of Tempest's and you don't even have to engage there.
Well, on paper you can just go for mass raven when he goes mass tempests and the energy regeneration really is strong enough to make you basically invulnerable infinitely. But I'd rather ask: - How do you get there consistently? (even with merged upgrades, you'd proably need to go Mech to begin with to have those upgrades and all the tech in the lategame... and how viable is defensive Mech play?) - How do you deal with all the other Protoss possibilities? (Carriers, Voidrays are incredibly powerful as well and cannot be stopped by PDDs) - How do you deal with massive counterplay? (PDDing one location is nice, but how do you defend 4+ bases that you need for such a composition, once you start your slow push)
In the (few) games I have played Mech/Airmech vs Protoss and the Protoss went for Air compositions in HotS, I have found it easier to deal with pure Tempest/HT than when the core of the units is Carriers/Voidrays.
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
It really is not good against tempest HT at all.
Point defense drone and tempest is useless
HT can feedback PDDs.
Cloack ghost snipe obs , snipe hts gg
you can do this all day, there's no point in listing counters and counters. Tempest vs PDD is useless because PDD will run out of energy fast if there's a decent number of Tempest's and you don't even have to engage there.
With all respect to qxc, but that comparison is beyond ridiculous. If you can drop PDDs on top of the tempests without any support they are useless. No shit sherlock! However it is a completely unrealistic scenario. Considering even bio sometimes has issues dealing with tempests, it simply is much larger for mech. If tempests had a reasonable supply of 5-6 or so it might be better.
The last fight might be slightly more realistic, but really, the toss there has 3 high templar against something like 10 ghosts + shitload of energy based units.
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
It really is not good against tempest HT at all.
Point defense drone and tempest is useless
HT can feedback PDDs.
Cloack ghost snipe obs , snipe hts gg
you can do this all day, there's no point in listing counters and counters. Tempest vs PDD is useless because PDD will run out of energy fast if there's a decent number of Tempest's and you don't even have to engage there.
Well, on paper you can just go for mass raven when he goes mass tempests and the energy regeneration really is strong enough to make you basically invulnerable infinitely. But I'd rather ask: - How do you get there consistently? (even with merged upgrades, you'd proably need to go Mech to begin with to have those upgrades and all the tech in the lategame... and how viable is defensive Mech play?) - How do you deal with all the other Protoss possibilities? (Carriers, Voidrays are incredibly powerful as well and cannot be stopped by PDDs) - How do you deal with massive counterplay? (PDDing one location is nice, but how do you defend 4+ bases that you need for such a composition, once you start your slow push)
In the (few) games I have played Mech/Airmech vs Protoss and the Protoss went for Air compositions in HotS, I have found it easier to deal with pure Tempest/HT than when the core of the units is Carriers/Voidrays.
If only we knew... Mech might actually be viable in TvP...
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
It really is not good against tempest HT at all.
Point defense drone and tempest is useless
HT can feedback PDDs.
Cloack ghost snipe obs , snipe hts gg
you can do this all day, there's no point in listing counters and counters. Tempest vs PDD is useless because PDD will run out of energy fast if there's a decent number of Tempest's and you don't even have to engage there.
Honestly, I clicked it and saw it wasn't a real game and was just qxc theorycrafting, and I stopped watching. Watch any of the more "famous" mech streamers. Hell, watch one of Avilo's games and you see him running around with lots of Ravens, trading well up to the late game point, and just fall apart when Tempest's come in. Only when large amounts of seekers connect does he win. Avilo isn't the best player, but he does know how to use Raven's and uses it a lot in a real game situation. Not a theorycraft.
On October 19 2013 09:16 hansonslee wrote: I hope we get to see more mech someday. At least, WM nerf wasn't as crippling as last time
I think if we want to see more Mech in both TvZ or TvP without doing too much changes to the Siege Tanks and other Mech units they would have to do some drastic changes. Honestly a 10% Increased Attack Speed wont change much in a 10 second engagement where you would only get 1 extra shot.
They could add a (+# vs. shields) to Siege Tanks and Thor's to increase the damage vs Protoss while maintaining the same of damage against Zergs but I'm not too sure it would work that effective.
They could also reduce the cost of getting armory's. It's too expensive to get both armory's and afford to set up 4-5 factories and then start producing units at the same time. They could try and reduce the Armory price down to 100 Minerals & 50 Gas.
I mean there are some changes that could make it viable but It feels like they are too afraid to try them even on there test maps (you would think they'd used them for such reasons) and see how they work.
On October 19 2013 12:29 Kalfos wrote: I think if we want to see more Mech in both TvZ or TvP without doing too much changes to the Siege Tanks and other Mech units they would have to do some drastic changes. Honestly a 10% Increased Attack Speed wont change much in a 10 second engagement where you would only get 1 extra shot.
That's precisely the problem. Blizzard is willing to consider a 60% nerf on the widow mine but the absolute upper bounds of a tank buff is 10%. This makes it clear that they will never agree to a sizable mech buff unless a virtual lynch mob starts gathering like was the case with infestors.
And this is what happened in a mech oriented expansion. Think what the future could bring with LotV.
On October 19 2013 12:29 Kalfos wrote: I think if we want to see more Mech in both TvZ or TvP without doing too much changes to the Siege Tanks and other Mech units they would have to do some drastic changes. Honestly a 10% Increased Attack Speed wont change much in a 10 second engagement where you would only get 1 extra shot.
That's precisely the problem. Blizzard is willing to consider a 60% nerf on the widow mine but the absolute upper bounds of a tank buff is 10%. This makes it clear that they will never agree to a sizable mech buff unless a virtual lynch mob starts gathering like was the case with infestors.
And this is what happened in a mech oriented expansion. Think what the future could bring with LotV.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggg. Which 60% nerf? Which 10% buff? Mines are not 60% worse when you nerf the splash area by 60% (which they don't even do). Tanks are not 10% better when you buff the attack speed of them by 10%.
Isolated those numbers say absolutly nothing about how the unit will perform afterwards.
Mines are 60% worse when you nerf their splash area with 60% against zerglings and banelings. It is true that for example vs toss they aren't much worse, considering there they aren't used at all. And when they are used it is really early game to single shot some units. But their primary goal is to take out (bane)lings in TvZ. There a 60% lower area will generally just mean 60% lower damage. Secondary is vs mutas, where the single target damage is reasonably important, so there it will be a bit better, but still a huge nerf. Granted with the last ideas it isn't 60% anymore, but it was in the first iteration.
And tanks are indeed 11% better, not 10%, woopdiedoop.
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
It really is not good against tempest HT at all.
Point defense drone and tempest is useless
HT can feedback PDDs.
Cloack ghost snipe obs , snipe hts gg
This is the thing I hate about TvP. Its a matchup balanced on a knife-edge relationship in the form of EMP/Feedbacks/Snipes which is not fun to watch or play. Its the matchup that really emphasis the flaws of SC2's countering the counter system.
Generally speaking, I really think Blizzard needs to get rid of this relationship that causes TvP to be so boring to watch (lets dance with your opponents blob because I dont wanna slip!) and frustrating to play.
Feedbacks I think are the biggest issue (ever since the days of WoL). Doesn't have to researched, and it affects all energy based units which is almost half the T units. I can see why such a spell had to be researched and be only available to a dark archon which couldn't attack in BW. In the same token, snipe and emp should be removed from the ghost and given to another unit like the raven. Terran needs an incentive to use the gas bank .. but all of their high tech units are useless and relatively get countered very easily.
On October 19 2013 16:31 Sissors wrote: Mines are 60% worse when you nerf their splash area with 60% against zerglings and banelings. It is true that for example vs toss they aren't much worse, considering there they aren't used at all. And when they are used it is really early game to single shot some units. But their primary goal is to take out (bane)lings in TvZ. There a 60% lower area will generally just mean 60% lower damage. Secondary is vs mutas, where the single target damage is reasonably important, so there it will be a bit better, but still a huge nerf. Granted with the last ideas it isn't 60% anymore, but it was in the first iteration.
And tanks are indeed 11% better, not 10%, woopdiedoop.
Not really. Units have certain formations when moving which affect the real splash output greatly. Not to mention that you haven't done the human component, as people don't run with maximum clumps into mines. E.g. in a scenario where a guy only runs 1-10units forward, the difference between a 1.75 and a 1.1 radius mine is surely not 60%. 60% is a theoretical maximum.
And then you still only calculated how their splash damage was nerfed. Their main target damage which is incredibly important (mutas, roaches, ultralisks) stays the same. So does the amount of hits they can take. You'd have to nerf all of that by 60% as well to get an 60% nerf to the unit.
It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
On October 20 2013 07:19 vthree wrote: Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
I'm sorry that I have to reply with such bullshit but here it is:
- if you make Widow Mines visible, I have no problem with that, Banelings are visible 98% of the time and storms can be seen with a simple scan
On October 20 2013 07:19 vthree wrote: Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
I'm sorry that I have to reply with such bullshit but here it is:
- if you make Widow Mines visible, I have no problem with that, Banelings are visible 98% of the time and storms can be seen with a simple scan
Isn't WMs visible if you have overseer? Or are the top Zerg microing using their 'game sense'? It would be funny if they made WM castable without burrowing similar to storms and same range. And then the zergs will know what is OP...
On October 20 2013 07:19 vthree wrote: Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
I'm sorry that I have to reply with such bullshit but here it is:
- if you make Widow Mines visible, I have no problem with that, Banelings are visible 98% of the time and storms can be seen with a simple scan
Isn't WMs visible if you have overseer? Or are the top Zerg microing using their 'game sense'?
In case you haven't noticed, that's the biggest problem with dealing with Widow Mines.
Zerg's detection is the worst of all three races, they need a visible, easy to snipe, unit to go in and reveal the burrowed/stealthed units. Other races have it in form of Raven, Observer, Scan, and on top of that, Marines are the core of the army, and consequently, they are the best anti-air in this game (if you don't include buffed Spore Crawlers vs Mutalisks). A Zerg cannot fly over Terran army and see the position of WMs in order to micro.
There have been several times where Widow Mines failed completely, and there have been way too many times where they have been way too good.
Personally, I have stopped playing Starcraft 2 just because of the Widow Mines, the MU is no longer any fun for me, the game is no fun to me when I see the 12min Marine rally.
Note, in order to keep players playing this game, you must make it fun, as I said in a previous post, I doubt that most of us here meet Jaedong, Innovation or Taeja on regular basis, so, making the game fun for all players is essential (Diamond Zerg here).
I've gone back to brood war, maybe I will give starcraft2 some time again when it gets balanced and properly designed. Wouldn't be hoping for that to happen very soon though.. especially looking at how good these new changes are!
On October 20 2013 07:19 vthree wrote: Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
I'm sorry that I have to reply with such bullshit but here it is:
- if you make Widow Mines visible, I have no problem with that, Banelings are visible 98% of the time and storms can be seen with a simple scan
Isn't WMs visible if you have overseer? Or are the top Zerg microing using their 'game sense'?
In case you haven't noticed, that's the biggest problem with dealing with Widow Mines.
Zerg's detection is the worst of all three races, they need a visible, easy to snipe, unit to go in and reveal the burrowed/stealthed units. Other races have it in form of Raven, Observer, Scan, and on top of that, Marines are the core of the army, and consequently, they are the best anti-air in this game (if you don't include buffed Spore Crawlers vs Mutalisks). A Zerg cannot fly over Terran army and see the position of WMs in order to micro.
There have been several times where Widow Mines failed completely, and there have been way too many times where they have been way too good.
Personally, I have stopped playing Starcraft 2 just because of the Widow Mines, the MU is no longer any fun for me, the game is no fun to me when I see the 12min Marine rally.
Note, in order to keep players playing this game, you must make it fun, as I said in a previous post, I doubt that most of us here meet Jaedong, Innovation or Taeja on regular basis, so, making the game fun for all players is essential (Diamond Zerg here).
Well, you are suppose to keep the overseers slightly behind your muta ball and have ling bling support underneath. If you are flying your army over the terran with your zerg army, then you have a lot more issues than WMs.
Scan cost minerals and are not FREE. Raven is slow as hell and overseers are the least expensive. Funny thing you mention about balance at not the tip top level. Even slightly below the top korean level, terrans are having a hard time. Or do you think all the good foreigners play zerg and protoss? Why do foreign terrans struggle the most?
And Diamond terrans have trouble vs splitting vs banes and dodging storms as well. I don't think terrans are too fond of ling bling muta, blink-all-ins, protoss deathballs either. If you want to quit because you lost a game, then it is not the games problem. Generally, players have more fun when they win. But in a 1v1 game, it is pretty hard to have everyone with 60% win rate.
On October 20 2013 07:19 vthree wrote: Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
I'm sorry that I have to reply with such bullshit but here it is:
- if you make Widow Mines visible, I have no problem with that, Banelings are visible 98% of the time and storms can be seen with a simple scan
Isn't WMs visible if you have overseer? Or are the top Zerg microing using their 'game sense'?
In case you haven't noticed, that's the biggest problem with dealing with Widow Mines.
Zerg's detection is the worst of all three races, they need a visible, easy to snipe, unit to go in and reveal the burrowed/stealthed units. Other races have it in form of Raven, Observer, Scan, and on top of that, Marines are the core of the army, and consequently, they are the best anti-air in this game (if you don't include buffed Spore Crawlers vs Mutalisks). A Zerg cannot fly over Terran army and see the position of WMs in order to micro.
There have been several times where Widow Mines failed completely, and there have been way too many times where they have been way too good.
Personally, I have stopped playing Starcraft 2 just because of the Widow Mines, the MU is no longer any fun for me, the game is no fun to me when I see the 12min Marine rally.
Note, in order to keep players playing this game, you must make it fun, as I said in a previous post, I doubt that most of us here meet Jaedong, Innovation or Taeja on regular basis, so, making the game fun for all players is essential (Diamond Zerg here).
Well, you are suppose to keep the overseers slightly behind your muta ball and have ling bling support underneath. If you are flying your army over the terran with your zerg army, then you have a lot more issues than WMs.
Scan cost minerals and are not FREE. Raven is slow as hell and overseers are the least expensive. Funny thing you mention about balance at not the tip top level. Even slightly below the top korean level, terrans are having a hard time. Or do you think all the good foreigners play zerg and protoss? Why do foreign terrans struggle the most?
And Diamond terrans have trouble vs splitting vs banes and dodging storms as well. I don't think terrans are too fond of ling bling muta, blink-all-ins, protoss deathballs either. If you want to quit because you lost a game, then it is not the games problem. Generally, players have more fun when they win. But in a 1v1 game, it is pretty hard to have everyone with 60% win rate.
But using the detectors the game provides to spot the cloaked units they were designed to find requires effort
On October 20 2013 07:19 vthree wrote: Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
I'm sorry that I have to reply with such bullshit but here it is:
- if you make Widow Mines visible, I have no problem with that, Banelings are visible 98% of the time and storms can be seen with a simple scan
Banelings and Hightemplars can be moving and damaging at the same time. Hightemplars have 2 more abilities than Psionic Storm: Feedback and Morph Motherfucking Archon.
You're right, you replied with really big bullshit.
On October 19 2013 19:00 Dwayn wrote: It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
This is dumb as hell. Even in BW, lots of stuff looked "obviously broken" in the abstract. Reavers, for example. Hardcountered all Terran bio, could wipe out a worker line in a single shot. I mean, 100 splash damage per shot at range 8 sounds fucking nuts when you think about it. But it ended up working out, because the game was full of shit like that.
Just looking at a unit or spell and saying this is crazy strong, therefore it must be nerfed, is stupid. If winrates are out of whack because of a unit, or it becomes so dominant that it forces all players into a single playstyle, then sure, change it. But ascertaining that takes time to gather data and let players experiment.
On October 20 2013 07:19 vthree wrote: Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
I'm sorry that I have to reply with such bullshit but here it is:
- if you make Widow Mines visible, I have no problem with that, Banelings are visible 98% of the time and storms can be seen with a simple scan
Isn't WMs visible if you have overseer? Or are the top Zerg microing using their 'game sense'?
In case you haven't noticed, that's the biggest problem with dealing with Widow Mines.
Zerg's detection is the worst of all three races, they need a visible, easy to snipe, unit to go in and reveal the burrowed/stealthed units. Other races have it in form of Raven, Observer, Scan, and on top of that, Marines are the core of the army, and consequently, they are the best anti-air in this game (if you don't include buffed Spore Crawlers vs Mutalisks). A Zerg cannot fly over Terran army and see the position of WMs in order to micro.
There have been several times where Widow Mines failed completely, and there have been way too many times where they have been way too good.
Personally, I have stopped playing Starcraft 2 just because of the Widow Mines, the MU is no longer any fun for me, the game is no fun to me when I see the 12min Marine rally.
Note, in order to keep players playing this game, you must make it fun, as I said in a previous post, I doubt that most of us here meet Jaedong, Innovation or Taeja on regular basis, so, making the game fun for all players is essential (Diamond Zerg here).
Well, you are suppose to keep the overseers slightly behind your muta ball and have ling bling support underneath. If you are flying your army over the terran with your zerg army, then you have a lot more issues than WMs.
Scan cost minerals and are not FREE. Raven is slow as hell and overseers are the least expensive. Funny thing you mention about balance at not the tip top level. Even slightly below the top korean level, terrans are having a hard time. Or do you think all the good foreigners play zerg and protoss? Why do foreign terrans struggle the most?
And Diamond terrans have trouble vs splitting vs banes and dodging storms as well. I don't think terrans are too fond of ling bling muta, blink-all-ins, protoss deathballs either. If you want to quit because you lost a game, then it is not the games problem. Generally, players have more fun when they win. But in a 1v1 game, it is pretty hard to have everyone with 60% win rate.
Indeed, Terran is made with intention to give more mechanically inclined players a better edge over other races. As Zerg, there's really little you can do in a battle except a good surround or a good concave or click on big Marine clumps with your Banelings.
Ravens are indeed slow, but you only get Ravens if your opponent is likes burrowed Baneling mines, yes, this is a tedious process with all Mutas flying around, but it's not as tedious as Overseer+Muta micro is.
As Terran, I hate to face Zergs because I suck at splitting, however, I find macro mechanics much easier once you've mastered "tapping" between production facilities (mine are tilde-tab-caps lock or 5-6-7 depending what units I need). Zerg is less forgiving on macro mechanics "oh, I just missed a wave of X unit? let me make 2 of them then!" in that regard.
I did not quit because I lost a game, I love losing games where my opponent is clearly better. And there is no more fun where my clump of everything gets destroyed by a forgotten mine.
On October 19 2013 19:00 Dwayn wrote: It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
This is dumb as hell. Even in BW, lots of stuff looked "obviously broken" in the abstract. Reavers, for example. Hardcountered all Terran bio, could wipe out a worker line in a single shot. I mean, 100 splash damage per shot at range 8 sounds fucking nuts when you think about it. But it ended up working out, because the game was full of shit like that.
Just looking at a unit or spell and saying this is crazy strong, therefore it must be nerfed, is stupid. If winrates are out of whack because of a unit, or it becomes so dominant that it forces all players into a single playstyle, then sure, change it. But ascertaining that takes time to gather data and let players experiment.
On October 19 2013 19:00 Dwayn wrote: It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
This is dumb as hell. Even in BW, lots of stuff looked "obviously broken" in the abstract. Reavers, for example. Hardcountered all Terran bio, could wipe out a worker line in a single shot. I mean, 100 splash damage per shot at range 8 sounds fucking nuts when you think about it. But it ended up working out, because the game was full of shit like that.
Just looking at a unit or spell and saying this is crazy strong, therefore it must be nerfed, is stupid. If winrates are out of whack because of a unit, or it becomes so dominant that it forces all players into a single playstyle, then sure, change it. But ascertaining that takes time to gather data and let players experiment.
Mech was viable in BW.
Here, it isn't.
In BW, Bio was only viable in 1 match. In SC2, Mech is only viable in 1 match.
On October 20 2013 07:19 vthree wrote: Let's hope that DK is watching the top zergs in WCS and see that WM at actually fine ATM as long as the Zerg micros. If he wants to balance the game for non top tier, then he might as well nerf baneling AoE and storm AoE. Those 2 are just as punishing if not micro'ed against.
I'm sorry that I have to reply with such bullshit but here it is:
- if you make Widow Mines visible, I have no problem with that, Banelings are visible 98% of the time and storms can be seen with a simple scan
Isn't WMs visible if you have overseer? Or are the top Zerg microing using their 'game sense'?
In case you haven't noticed, that's the biggest problem with dealing with Widow Mines.
Zerg's detection is the worst of all three races, they need a visible, easy to snipe, unit to go in and reveal the burrowed/stealthed units. Other races have it in form of Raven, Observer, Scan, and on top of that, Marines are the core of the army, and consequently, they are the best anti-air in this game (if you don't include buffed Spore Crawlers vs Mutalisks). A Zerg cannot fly over Terran army and see the position of WMs in order to micro.
There have been several times where Widow Mines failed completely, and there have been way too many times where they have been way too good.
Personally, I have stopped playing Starcraft 2 just because of the Widow Mines, the MU is no longer any fun for me, the game is no fun to me when I see the 12min Marine rally.
Note, in order to keep players playing this game, you must make it fun, as I said in a previous post, I doubt that most of us here meet Jaedong, Innovation or Taeja on regular basis, so, making the game fun for all players is essential (Diamond Zerg here).
Well, you are suppose to keep the overseers slightly behind your muta ball and have ling bling support underneath. If you are flying your army over the terran with your zerg army, then you have a lot more issues than WMs.
Scan cost minerals and are not FREE. Raven is slow as hell and overseers are the least expensive. Funny thing you mention about balance at not the tip top level. Even slightly below the top korean level, terrans are having a hard time. Or do you think all the good foreigners play zerg and protoss? Why do foreign terrans struggle the most?
And Diamond terrans have trouble vs splitting vs banes and dodging storms as well. I don't think terrans are too fond of ling bling muta, blink-all-ins, protoss deathballs either. If you want to quit because you lost a game, then it is not the games problem. Generally, players have more fun when they win. But in a 1v1 game, it is pretty hard to have everyone with 60% win rate.
Indeed, Terran is made with intention to give more mechanically inclined players a better edge over other races. As Zerg, there's really little you can do in a battle except a good surround or a good concave or click on big Marine clumps with your Banelings.
Ravens are indeed slow, but you only get Ravens if your opponent is likes burrowed Baneling mines, yes, this is a tedious process with all Mutas flying around, but it's not as tedious as Overseer+Muta micro is.
As Terran, I hate to face Zergs because I suck at splitting, however, I find macro mechanics much easier once you've mastered "tapping" between production facilities (mine are tilde-tab-caps lock or 5-6-7 depending what units I need). Zerg is less forgiving on macro mechanics "oh, I just missed a wave of X unit? let me make 2 of them then!" in that regard.
I did not quit because I lost a game, I love losing games where my opponent is clearly better. And there is no more fun where my clump of everything gets destroyed by a forgotten mine.
And when you play Terran, don't you have times when you look away from your army too long and they get rolled over by banes? It is the same thing.
And how many percent of your games you lose are because your opponent play better? Or do you just blame cheese, lag, OP units most of the time? It seems like you just don't want to own up to your losses. The way the game is setup, you usual play players of equal skill. So you aren't playing vs Inno and Taeja.
On October 19 2013 19:00 Dwayn wrote: It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
This is dumb as hell. Even in BW, lots of stuff looked "obviously broken" in the abstract. Reavers, for example. Hardcountered all Terran bio, could wipe out a worker line in a single shot. I mean, 100 splash damage per shot at range 8 sounds fucking nuts when you think about it. But it ended up working out, because the game was full of shit like that.
Just looking at a unit or spell and saying this is crazy strong, therefore it must be nerfed, is stupid. If winrates are out of whack because of a unit, or it becomes so dominant that it forces all players into a single playstyle, then sure, change it. But ascertaining that takes time to gather data and let players experiment.
Mech was viable in BW.
Here, it isn't.
In BW, Bio was only viable in 1 match. In SC2, Mech is only viable in 1 match.
Not much difference.
It didn't always used to be like that thought, it was only until Boxer and really good Terrans came along that people started using that Mech playstyle, and it was mostly vs Protoss anyway. You're actually starting to see many Terrans start playing around with Mech vs Zerg and other matchups. SC tends to follow certain patterns when people come up with good strats that work for periods of time. But there always comes along innovators and people willing to think outside the current meta strats until new play-styles get developed. Anyone who actually followed BW knows this, and everyone complaining knows that happened all the time in BW as well.
And honestly it isn't even the radius of WM that is the problem, it's the fact that they cost practically nothing when the damage they can do is extraordinary. It's the reverse problem the oracle has, the oracle costs way too much for the risk/reward of producing them over the long-term.
Then lets say WMs are broken. The question then is: What are you proposing to buff for terran? (And then I mean a serious buff, not 10% reduction in siege tank cycle rate). Because it might be broken, but it needs to be broken to keep terran competitive vs zerg.
As Terran, I hate to face Zergs because I suck at splitting, however, I find macro mechanics much easier once you've mastered "tapping" between production facilities (mine are tilde-tab-caps lock or 5-6-7 depending what units I need). Zerg is less forgiving on macro mechanics "oh, I just missed a wave of X unit? let me make 2 of them then!" in that regard.
They are different. Lets say you have a quite long battle vs zerg, and you completely forget to macro during it. Then afterwards you have no army and you have to start producing them again. Meanwhile zerg still has banked larvas from before the fight and those they got passively during the fight, and can remake their army alot quicker.
Note, in order to keep players playing this game, you must make it fun, as I said in a previous post, I doubt that most of us here meet Jaedong, Innovation or Taeja on regular basis, so, making the game fun for all players is essential (Diamond Zerg here).
Agreed that also it needs to be balanced at lower levels. But if it would be so hard for zerg compared to terran, isn't it a bit weird they are played by more people in every league above silver?
If the Tank buff is not enough, then Blizzard will fix it.
Anyone remember the void ray buffs after it got nerfed severely? Now, look at what the VR is today. It's a pretty good unit without overpowering qualities. Give this game a chance to place in small buffs. If WoL taught us anything, once you go heavy with the buffs/nerfs, it's very hard to go back!
Feel free to whine hard, if that suits you, but I am very happy with how well Blizzard taking care of its game lately
On October 20 2013 10:13 Kare wrote: I've gone back to brood war, maybe I will give starcraft2 some time again when it gets balanced and properly designed. Wouldn't be hoping for that to happen very soon though.. especially looking at how good these new changes are!
Considering it is already balanced and this patch is rather 'quality of life' patch... Good joke, bro.
On October 20 2013 10:13 Kare wrote: I've gone back to brood war, maybe I will give starcraft2 some time again when it gets balanced and properly designed. Wouldn't be hoping for that to happen very soon though.. especially looking at how good these new changes are!
Considering it is already balanced and this patch is rather 'quality of life' patch... Good joke, bro.
On October 19 2013 19:00 Dwayn wrote: It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
This is dumb as hell. Even in BW, lots of stuff looked "obviously broken" in the abstract. Reavers, for example. Hardcountered all Terran bio, could wipe out a worker line in a single shot. I mean, 100 splash damage per shot at range 8 sounds fucking nuts when you think about it. But it ended up working out, because the game was full of shit like that.
Just looking at a unit or spell and saying this is crazy strong, therefore it must be nerfed, is stupid. If winrates are out of whack because of a unit, or it becomes so dominant that it forces all players into a single playstyle, then sure, change it. But ascertaining that takes time to gather data and let players experiment.
Mech was viable in BW.
Here, it isn't.
In BW, Bio was only viable in 1 match. In SC2, Mech is only viable in 1 match.
Not much difference.
Except in BW, mech allowed so much more creativity/diversity within the matchup. Protoss outside of the scout could use so many different compositions including a carrier force. It was positioning vs mobility/bruteforce/etc.
With SC2, the opposing races are always forced to certain compositions (and certain units will never see the light of the day) or else your going to flat out die. If you make tanks suddenly viable to each matchup as the core unit, forgoing mobility for positional fire power.. it enables half of the units from the opposing races relevant again in the meta because they were specifically designed to counter tanks/factory based units. The relationship between positioning/firepower vs mobility is ALOT interesting to watch (think bio vs mech in SC2 TvT) than mobility vs mobility where the consequences are.. units are getting faster and faster!! Soon Oracles/Mutas at this rate will have move speed of 5..
Sadly tanks dont have that "fire power" even with its gimped mobility so it can never be that core unit. Its another reason why you cannot re-create BW "mech" ala positioning/zoning and creating tank lines all around the map because a few tanks cannot hold anything.
Thats why some people think mech in SC2 is boring because you have to create a death ball (theres no choice really). If tanks were really devastating to approach.. T players would actually have incentives to start positioning them to take control of chokes or an area that enables more expansions or retreat path/reinforcements re-creating what BW "mech" was all about. Even in SC2 mech vs mech you don't see this happen outside one tank siege line as having them spread around would mean any one of those points can be exposed by a moderate mech force with hellbats spearheading the weak tank lines. For some of you that don't know, BW TvT mech was actually pretty fast paced (it would be slow to start then the pace would exponentially rise).
I really wish they attempted at making the tank viable to be that core unit (reduce supply/cost or w/e). I also happen to think marauders should be 50 gas or higher because this means you cant get both marauders and tanks if one goes bio.
On October 20 2013 16:18 hansonslee wrote: If the Tank buff is not enough, then Blizzard will fix it.
Blizzard already 'fixed' mech play in this expansion. That they will try to fix bio is exactly what worries us.
You don't have to worry about that. Blizzard wouldn't be stupid enough to fix bio. Bio is a part of every match up! To make such changes on that would ruin the game essentially. Right now, mech is the least used route, and it will not affect any other match up as dramatically.
I too think the changes are a bit too little, but hey, I said the same thing about the overseer change, and look at how well Zerg players have been doing against Terran lately!
On October 18 2013 18:42 iHirO wrote: With the new combined upgrades and siege tank buff, will it be possible to play bio in TvP and then do a full mech switch in the late game?
You generally get the air upgrades anyway (to kill colossus harder and make medivacs harder to snipe) and I can definitely see adding in 3/3 hellbats to deal with late game chargelots.
But would it be worth making tanks and thors on 4 bases or will Protoss easily counter it?
prob not to ground mech, but air mech switch would be super viable, mass bcs raven vikings+ ghost , is pretty gud vs toss late late game
It really is not good against tempest HT at all.
Point defense drone and tempest is useless
HT can feedback PDDs.
Cloack ghost snipe obs , snipe hts gg
you can do this all day, there's no point in listing counters and counters. Tempest vs PDD is useless because PDD will run out of energy fast if there's a decent number of Tempest's and you don't even have to engage there.
if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win. But Protoss have things like observers and hallucinated phoenix, last l heard void rays are good against sky terran.
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
On October 20 2013 10:13 Kare wrote: I've gone back to brood war, maybe I will give starcraft2 some time again when it gets balanced and properly designed. Wouldn't be hoping for that to happen very soon though.. especially looking at how good these new changes are!
Considering it is already balanced and this patch is rather 'quality of life' patch... Good joke, bro.
yep its balanced .. aside from tvp i think
It is balanced if you do enough damage to ride home the victory in TvZ. Your statement without this addition is wrong.
OT: Terran needs aoe in TvZ, badly. And i guess a buff to our T3 units wouldnt be so bad either.
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
But imo that was a herp a derp move by our terran god which shouldnt have happened (iirc). (sry for doublepost, had no coffee yet -__-)
On October 19 2013 19:00 Dwayn wrote: It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
This is dumb as hell. Even in BW, lots of stuff looked "obviously broken" in the abstract. Reavers, for example. Hardcountered all Terran bio, could wipe out a worker line in a single shot. I mean, 100 splash damage per shot at range 8 sounds fucking nuts when you think about it. But it ended up working out, because the game was full of shit like that.
Just looking at a unit or spell and saying this is crazy strong, therefore it must be nerfed, is stupid. If winrates are out of whack because of a unit, or it becomes so dominant that it forces all players into a single playstyle, then sure, change it. But ascertaining that takes time to gather data and let players experiment.
Mech was viable in BW.
Here, it isn't.
In BW, Bio was only viable in 1 match. In SC2, Mech is only viable in 1 match.
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
vortex was still available that time ..dont complete skyterran rape all kinds of compositions theoretically of course .. i havent seen one yet
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
vortex was still available that time ..dont complete skyterran rape all kinds of compositions theoretically of course .. i havent seen one yet
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
vortex was still available that time ..dont complete skyterran rape all kinds of compositions theoretically of course .. i havent seen one yet
Templar + Tempest is a lategame composition I have yet to see any Terran defeat. Feedback annihilates the PDDs and Ravens and Storm ravages the absurd amount of Vikings you need. Ghosts can get sniped and Feedbacked all the same not to mention they're mostly dead weight once Protoss adds in one or two Colossi.
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
vortex was still available that time ..dont complete skyterran rape all kinds of compositions theoretically of course .. i havent seen one yet
In a "one big engagment"-scenario in TvZ (and TvT) this is probably true - though a Zerg can do a lot to prevent that from ever happening through Static D and Vipers. In TvP (theoretical) Skytoss is probably just stronger, since Carriers counter all Terran Air/Mech units but BCs - which are an extremly soft counter and can be hardcountered through Tempest/VR.
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
vortex was still available that time ..dont complete skyterran rape all kinds of compositions theoretically of course .. i havent seen one yet
Not really. Zergs can spoon it with vipers and protoss with tempests. Believe me - there were pro terrans that tried.
On October 20 2013 19:59 Thezzy wrote: Templar + Tempest is a lategame composition I have yet to see any Terran defeat. Feedback annihilates the PDDs and Ravens and Storm ravages the absurd amount of Vikings you need. Ghosts can get sniped and Feedbacked all the same not to mention they're mostly dead weight once Protoss adds in one or two Colossi.
Well ghost cloack/raven/BC can beat this I guess
It's probably a matter of control during the fight (and its probably way harder for the terran than the protoss)
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
vortex was still available that time ..dont complete skyterran rape all kinds of compositions theoretically of course .. i havent seen one yet
Not really. Zergs can spoon it with vipers and protoss with tempests. Believe me - there were pro terrans that tried.
Well actually Skyterran vZ destroy everything zerg... But thats only for TvZ
On October 20 2013 18:45 gobbledydook wrote: if you suddenly come out with mass BC Raven against Protoss and the protoss somehow didn't know about it of course you will win.
You should watch a bit more of GSL. ( hint : MVP vs Squirtle ) spoiler : toss win :D
vortex was still available that time ..dont complete skyterran rape all kinds of compositions theoretically of course .. i havent seen one yet
Not really. Zergs can spoon it with vipers and protoss with tempests. Believe me - there were pro terrans that tried.
Well actually Skyterran vZ destroy everything zerg... But thats only for TvZ
I never saw any terran lose with Sky vZ
You can watch Strelok stream if you want to see it. It's certainly not a weak style in the deciding-engagement but the mid-game attrition is simply too high.
On October 20 2013 19:59 Thezzy wrote: Templar + Tempest is a lategame composition I have yet to see any Terran defeat. Feedback annihilates the PDDs and Ravens and Storm ravages the absurd amount of Vikings you need. Ghosts can get sniped and Feedbacked all the same not to mention they're mostly dead weight once Protoss adds in one or two Colossi.
Well ghost cloack/raven/BC can beat this I guess
It's probably a matter of control during the fight (and its probably way harder for the terran than the protoss)
The problem is not that it's harder but requires protoss to blunder. The only time I've seen this style work was when protoss got his tempests nuked.
you can go watch games of thorzain where caster were completely annoyed by a stale match where zerg crushes piece by piece a skyterran +mech with static D, vipers SH corruptors.
you can go watch games of thorzain where caster were completely annoyed by a stale match where zerg crushes piece by piece a skyterran +mech with static D, vipers SH corruptors.
Also Lucifron vs ICan'tRemember from a recent Dreamhack i think. Very ugly games that. Makes Infestor BL look like "the good old times"....
Can anyone tell me if they removed the speed buffs for the oracle? To me it would make much more sense removing that and keeping the increased distance of revelation if they want to see it more late game.
Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. So we see stuff like:
1) Widow mines. Which originally came from a thing call the shredder. It is an unit that works outside of the army for cheap, easy board control. "We want something not added to the ball of death." @6:28 In theory, that would help mech to gain more map control... Well, everyone knows that is not what happened to WM in HOTS. It just replaced siege tank completely in TvZ. No more Marine Tank or mech in TvZ.
2) There is a +damage to shield for the WM, but never ever would Blizzard just try to buff the tanks in TvP. There is no mech in TvP. Mech in not viable in TvP. We don't even see much WMs play in TvP anyway except some early game harassment.
3) Thor - Heavy Anti Armour mode. This is a great addition to mech in TvZ. Back in WOL, TvZ mech is all about hitting a timing before broodlord. This created a coin-flip situation. In general speaking, it is either the Zerg player can hold long enough to get Bloodlords or get completely rolled over by 20 tanks. With Thors having a buff in anti-broodlord, TvZ mech against broodlord compositions actually become a dance. Whoever have the better positioning/mirco often wins.
-BUT then they added Viper.... Which completely kills mech TvZ. The viper has 2 spells that completely hard counter tanks. It is even more a hard counter than the immortal.
Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
Blizzard attitude towards mech is a simple case of moving the goalposts in the interest of ass-covering. They will say that it's not that they failed to make it work . Instead mech shouldn't have ever worked in the first place.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
Blizzard attitude towards mech is a simple case of moving the goalposts in the interest of ass-covering. They will say that it's not that they failed to make it work . Instead mech shouldn't have ever worked in the first place.
I think from blizzard's point of view it comes down to the following question: Do we want to make Mech work, despite it being extremly limiting to the game's design?
Why do I think that they think so? Because anything they added to the game from WoL to HotS seems to be a counter to the playstyle. So they are probably thinking that they have to screw the game over too much to make it work.
I don't think so, I think there are sweetspots that they could hit. But they are not going to hit them with "just buff it in some way", but need to tinker it in very specific ways.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals
Good one, i will just go with roles they noted for terran units in their Blizzcon demo: Shredder: space control, the thing SC2 mech SUDDENLY lacked. Warhound: counter to tanks in TvT. Hellbat: yes, to tank for rest of mech.
you can go watch games of thorzain where caster were completely annoyed by a stale match where zerg crushes piece by piece a skyterran +mech with static D, vipers SH corruptors.
Also Lucifron vs ICan'tRemember from a recent Dreamhack i think. Very ugly games that. Makes Infestor BL look like "the good old times"....
Don't blame mech for that, blame the god awful maps.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
Blizzard attitude towards mech is a simple case of moving the goalposts in the interest of ass-covering. They will say that it's not that they failed to make it work . Instead mech shouldn't have ever worked in the first place.
I think from blizzard's point of view it comes down to the following question: Do we want to make Mech work, despite it being extremly limiting to the game's design?
you can go watch games of thorzain where caster were completely annoyed by a stale match where zerg crushes piece by piece a skyterran +mech with static D, vipers SH corruptors.
Also Lucifron vs ICan'tRemember from a recent Dreamhack i think. Very ugly games that. Makes Infestor BL look like "the good old times"....
Don't blame mech for that, blame the god awful maps.
God awful maps? Huh, Newkirk is not really god awful map, style is ugly though. The new edition of Newkirk ofc.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
Blizzard attitude towards mech is a simple case of moving the goalposts in the interest of ass-covering. They will say that it's not that they failed to make it work . Instead mech shouldn't have ever worked in the first place.
I think from blizzard's point of view it comes down to the following question: Do we want to make Mech work, despite it being extremly limiting to the game's design?
Why exactly?
read on
Why do I think that they think so? Because anything they added to the game from WoL to HotS seems to be a counter to the playstyle. So they are probably thinking that they have to screw the game over too much to make it work.
Or as an incomplete list: Zealot Charge Immortal HotS Void Rays Tempest Viper Swarm Host ...
So their approach seems to be, if we can't make it work by designing stuff for it, we won't force it into the game, because forcing it into the game would require us to rebalance/redesign/remove a lot of stuff, without knowing whether the outcome will be worth it.
you can go watch games of thorzain where caster were completely annoyed by a stale match where zerg crushes piece by piece a skyterran +mech with static D, vipers SH corruptors.
Also Lucifron vs ICan'tRemember from a recent Dreamhack i think. Very ugly games that. Makes Infestor BL look like "the good old times"....
Don't blame mech for that, blame the god awful maps.
I'm not blaming mech; i'm blaming the SH and the Viper actually. EDIT: the map was bad to, yes.
On October 19 2013 19:00 Dwayn wrote: It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
This is dumb as hell. Even in BW, lots of stuff looked "obviously broken" in the abstract. Reavers, for example. Hardcountered all Terran bio, could wipe out a worker line in a single shot. I mean, 100 splash damage per shot at range 8 sounds fucking nuts when you think about it. But it ended up working out, because the game was full of shit like that.
Just looking at a unit or spell and saying this is crazy strong, therefore it must be nerfed, is stupid. If winrates are out of whack because of a unit, or it becomes so dominant that it forces all players into a single playstyle, then sure, change it. But ascertaining that takes time to gather data and let players experiment.
Mech was viable in BW.
Here, it isn't.
In BW, Bio was only viable in 1 match. In SC2, Mech is only viable in 1 match.
Not much difference.
Except in BW, mech allowed so much more creativity/diversity within the matchup. Protoss outside of the scout could use so many different compositions including a carrier force. It was positioning vs mobility/bruteforce/etc.
With SC2, the opposing races are always forced to certain compositions (and certain units will never see the light of the day) or else your going to flat out die. If you make tanks suddenly viable to each matchup as the core unit, forgoing mobility for positional fire power.. it enables half of the units from the opposing races relevant again in the meta because they were specifically designed to counter tanks/factory based units. The relationship between positioning/firepower vs mobility is ALOT interesting to watch (think bio vs mech in SC2 TvT) than mobility vs mobility where the consequences are.. units are getting faster and faster!! Soon Oracles/Mutas at this rate will have move speed of 5..
Sadly tanks dont have that "fire power" even with its gimped mobility so it can never be that core unit. Its another reason why you cannot re-create BW "mech" ala positioning/zoning and creating tank lines all around the map because a few tanks cannot hold anything.
Thats why some people think mech in SC2 is boring because you have to create a death ball (theres no choice really). If tanks were really devastating to approach.. T players would actually have incentives to start positioning them to take control of chokes or an area that enables more expansions or retreat path/reinforcements re-creating what BW "mech" was all about. Even in SC2 mech vs mech you don't see this happen outside one tank siege line as having them spread around would mean any one of those points can be exposed by a moderate mech force with hellbats spearheading the weak tank lines. For some of you that don't know, BW TvT mech was actually pretty fast paced (it would be slow to start then the pace would exponentially rise).
I really wish they attempted at making the tank viable to be that core unit (reduce supply/cost or w/e). I also happen to think marauders should be 50 gas or higher because this means you cant get both marauders and tanks if one goes bio.
Two things.
First, I do not disagree with what you say. Single comp strategies were much more diverse in BW and allowed for MUCH more dynamic interaction. So even though Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel was 99% of TvZ, it never felt like the same TvZ matchup twice. etc...
Second, Marauders goes against everything that barracks play represents. Flavor wise, they are a massive mech unit that a guy jumps into that is as big or bigger than a vulture. It's HUGE. Design wise, they are the perfect Protoss unit. They are large hard hitting units with lots of hitpoints. I have no idea how they are a terran unit--at all.
To be honest, I think Blizzard probably doesn't want that the playstyle of some terrans "turtle behind planetary and turrets until deathball" to work because it leads to very boring play. Mech playstyle like the one Flash did on some game against DRG for example is nice to watch, but the other playstyle like Goody in WoL is, to me, just awful to play against and booooring to watch.
I don't really know how you could promote the "Flash mech" without buffing the "Goody" mech, I'd be glad if it is possible but it would probably requires a redesign of a lot of units, not just "buff Tanks/Thor..." or whatever.
On October 19 2013 19:00 Dwayn wrote: It's a joke that it took them so long to finally address the WM issues. Everyone who isn't completely biased towards T knows they are broken. The "we'll have to wait and see how thing develope" mentality needs to stop. Even the hellbat nerf took them much too long, a unit which was so ridiculously imbalanced it almost funny and sad at the same time. When something is obviously broken just go and fix it asap.
This is dumb as hell. Even in BW, lots of stuff looked "obviously broken" in the abstract. Reavers, for example. Hardcountered all Terran bio, could wipe out a worker line in a single shot. I mean, 100 splash damage per shot at range 8 sounds fucking nuts when you think about it. But it ended up working out, because the game was full of shit like that.
Just looking at a unit or spell and saying this is crazy strong, therefore it must be nerfed, is stupid. If winrates are out of whack because of a unit, or it becomes so dominant that it forces all players into a single playstyle, then sure, change it. But ascertaining that takes time to gather data and let players experiment.
Mech was viable in BW.
Here, it isn't.
In BW, Bio was only viable in 1 match. In SC2, Mech is only viable in 1 match.
Not much difference.
mech viable versus protoss is a huge difference
Mech play vs protoss is already in SC2, it's called Swarmhost play.
It also happens that PvZ is the most dynamic non-mirror matchup as well. Go figure.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
Blizzard attitude towards mech is a simple case of moving the goalposts in the interest of ass-covering. They will say that it's not that they failed to make it work . Instead mech shouldn't have ever worked in the first place.
I think from blizzard's point of view it comes down to the following question: Do we want to make Mech work, despite it being extremly limiting to the game's design?
Why do I think that they think so? Because anything they added to the game from WoL to HotS seems to be a counter to the playstyle. So they are probably thinking that they have to screw the game over too much to make it work.
Or as an incomplete list: Zealot Charge Immortal HotS Void Rays Tempest Viper Swarm Host ...
So their approach seems to be, if we can't make it work by designing stuff for it, we won't force it into the game, because forcing it into the game would require us to rebalance/redesign/remove a lot of stuff, without knowing whether the outcome will be worth it.
Not convinced that the reason behind all of this is that they think mech is "limiting to the game's design". They probably just have this pathetic cliché that only fast & furious things are entertaining to watch, on top of not understanding anything to what mech is and being very content with their dumb system of hard counters.
you can go watch games of thorzain where caster were completely annoyed by a stale match where zerg crushes piece by piece a skyterran +mech with static D, vipers SH corruptors.
Also Lucifron vs ICan'tRemember from a recent Dreamhack i think. Very ugly games that. Makes Infestor BL look like "the good old times"....
Don't blame mech for that, blame the god awful maps.
God awful maps? Huh, Newkirk is not really god awful map, style is ugly though. The new edition of Newkirk ofc.
Newkirk was a pretty cool map, the issue was that the Zerg decided to not use their techs to avoid standing armies. Only reason why those stalemates actually happened. Well and Terran not using Nukes.
you can go watch games of thorzain where caster were completely annoyed by a stale match where zerg crushes piece by piece a skyterran +mech with static D, vipers SH corruptors.
Also Lucifron vs ICan'tRemember from a recent Dreamhack i think. Very ugly games that. Makes Infestor BL look like "the good old times"....
Don't blame mech for that, blame the god awful maps.
God awful maps? Huh, Newkirk is not really god awful map, style is ugly though. The new edition of Newkirk ofc.
Newkirk was a pretty cool map, the issue was that the Zerg decided to not use their techs to avoid standing armies. Only reason why those stalemates actually happened. Well and Terran not using Nukes.
Their techs? Sorry, but as a fact, i can state that once Terran establishes that turtling position, tech switching is a waste of resources and actually doing that SH-viper turtle is the only really good way of fighting it.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
I sort of disagree with this. By looking at how the units were designed to work and how they were balanced, IMO Blizzard (Browder) wanted a bio 2.0 from the factory to be viable. So to this effect we got a mechanical marauder and a mechanical firebat. It was always about "move and shoot" 1a units and not strategical/ positioning based play (as it's what we understand by "mech")
When it got clear that the majority of the community did not want this crap, they scraped the Warhound and ANY plans for mech along with it. It was bio 2.0 or NOTHING. This is why nothing of note was ever done to the Siege Tank or to it's ridiculous hard counters.
Since mech was never going to happen, they had to find a way to incorporate the new units in to the classic bio play; here we get the "bio" tag on the Hellbat and the balancing of the mine in to a mini Siege Tank.
This latest proposed patch is the ONLY time Blizzard has ever thought about the viability of mech in a positive light. Though i think it's save to say that the proposed changes are not even close to being enough.
On October 21 2013 00:24 Vanadiel wrote: To be honest, I think Blizzard probably doesn't want that the playstyle of some terrans "turtle behind planetary and turrets until deathball" to work because it leads to very boring play. Mech playstyle like the one Flash did on some game against DRG for example is nice to watch, but the other playstyle like Goody in WoL is, to me, just awful to play against and booooring to watch.
I don't really know how you could promote the "Flash mech" without buffing the "Goody" mech, I'd be glad if it is possible but it would probably requires a redesign of a lot of units, not just "buff Tanks/Thor..." or whatever.
There will be always race with best "late-game" army for each matchup and it of course promotes to turtle until you get your deathball composition.
For example, TvZ WoL - Broodlord/Corruptor + Infestor, Zergs were turtling like there is no tomorrow... PvT - Deathball army with both HT/Colossus...
With mech it is the same story.
Now on the other hand, it becomes problematic and frustrating when race with faster economy/production/movement also has ability to turtle in best army composition. Late WoL days are prime example of how bullshit this is.
Terran has the slowest production (while playing mech this can't be argued), economy and possibly map control of all races and Terran absolutely can't recover from fight as fast as other two races. So do the math which race should have the best army composition that can trade most effectively.
Lots of people I play on ladder are having problems playing vs mech and they often dies while trying to fight me head on and letting me into late-late game where I can afford all upgrades, collect energy on Ravens, secure key spots with PF, etc... Then those players complan, how insane this is, while all they want to do is the same...
I'm currently playing as unranked and at the start of the game I always tell my opponent that I'm going mech to see what they can do.. Most of the time they have no idea and just lose in a terrible way or do some gimmicky allin or timing push (which is what I want to learn how to play against).
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
Blizzard attitude towards mech is a simple case of moving the goalposts in the interest of ass-covering. They will say that it's not that they failed to make it work . Instead mech shouldn't have ever worked in the first place.
I think from blizzard's point of view it comes down to the following question: Do we want to make Mech work, despite it being extremly limiting to the game's design?
Why exactly?
read on
Why do I think that they think so? Because anything they added to the game from WoL to HotS seems to be a counter to the playstyle. So they are probably thinking that they have to screw the game over too much to make it work.
Or as an incomplete list: Zealot Charge Immortal HotS Void Rays Tempest Viper Swarm Host ...
So their approach seems to be, if we can't make it work by designing stuff for it, we won't force it into the game, because forcing it into the game would require us to rebalance/redesign/remove a lot of stuff, without knowing whether the outcome will be worth it.
Not convinced that the reason behind all of this is that they think mech is "limiting to the game's design". They probably just have this pathetic cliché that only fast & furious things are entertaining to watch, on top of not understanding anything to what mech is and being very content with their dumb system of hard counters.
Yeah, I'm not gonna discuss this if your standpoint is to use the most vicious forum-missinterpretations of stuff that blizzard has never said like that.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
Blizzard attitude towards mech is a simple case of moving the goalposts in the interest of ass-covering. They will say that it's not that they failed to make it work . Instead mech shouldn't have ever worked in the first place.
I think from blizzard's point of view it comes down to the following question: Do we want to make Mech work, despite it being extremly limiting to the game's design?
Why exactly?
read on
Why do I think that they think so? Because anything they added to the game from WoL to HotS seems to be a counter to the playstyle. So they are probably thinking that they have to screw the game over too much to make it work.
Or as an incomplete list: Zealot Charge Immortal HotS Void Rays Tempest Viper Swarm Host ...
So their approach seems to be, if we can't make it work by designing stuff for it, we won't force it into the game, because forcing it into the game would require us to rebalance/redesign/remove a lot of stuff, without knowing whether the outcome will be worth it.
Not convinced that the reason behind all of this is that they think mech is "limiting to the game's design". They probably just have this pathetic cliché that only fast & furious things are entertaining to watch, on top of not understanding anything to what mech is and being very content with their dumb system of hard counters.
Yeah, I'm not gonna discuss this if your standpoint is to use the most vicious forum-missinterpretations of stuff that blizzard has never said like that.
As if they were going to be honest in the vague statements they publish once in a blue moon; don't you know how companies work when it comes to PR? There is sadly no minsinterpretation in what I said, just the result of observing the game and even basic reading.
On October 20 2013 23:18 bhfberserk wrote: Sometimes I don't even understand what is Blizzard doing.
First of all, they said they want to fix mech in HOTS. [...] Seriously Blizzard. Do we ever see mech in TvP? Why not try a +shield damage on the tank for once.
You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then.
Blizzard attitude towards mech is a simple case of moving the goalposts in the interest of ass-covering. They will say that it's not that they failed to make it work . Instead mech shouldn't have ever worked in the first place.
I think from blizzard's point of view it comes down to the following question: Do we want to make Mech work, despite it being extremly limiting to the game's design?
Why exactly?
read on
Why do I think that they think so? Because anything they added to the game from WoL to HotS seems to be a counter to the playstyle. So they are probably thinking that they have to screw the game over too much to make it work.
Or as an incomplete list: Zealot Charge Immortal HotS Void Rays Tempest Viper Swarm Host ...
So their approach seems to be, if we can't make it work by designing stuff for it, we won't force it into the game, because forcing it into the game would require us to rebalance/redesign/remove a lot of stuff, without knowing whether the outcome will be worth it.
Not convinced that the reason behind all of this is that they think mech is "limiting to the game's design". They probably just have this pathetic cliché that only fast & furious things are entertaining to watch, on top of not understanding anything to what mech is and being very content with their dumb system of hard counters.
Yeah, I'm not gonna discuss this if your standpoint is to use the most vicious forum-missinterpretations of stuff that blizzard has never said like that.
As if they were going to be honest in the vague statements they publish once in a blue moon; don't you know how companies work when it comes to PR? There is sadly no minsinterpretation in what I said, just the result of observing the game and even basic reading.
Did it ever come to you that even the stuff that gets missinterpreted as "antimech" is PR as well?
That they said "we prefer bio/mine over bio/tank" because they want to advertise the game instead of grumbling around how the game could be better? Or that they said "we are not going to force mech into the game" because if they said anything else it could be interpreted as the game is incomplete, don't buy it?
Of coure they are not going to be superhonest and talk about every little thing they would like to have changed, just so that the whole internet can go berserk about the developers being dissatisfied with their work. That does not mean we have to turn everything they say into horseshit.
On October 21 2013 01:57 Chaggi wrote: Big J, this isn't really related to the topic at hand but do you actually play the game? You're in like every topic lol
How is the TvZ winrate ? I thought it was stabilizing towards the 50% already. If blizzard doesn't really want every TvZ to be 4M, why don't they unlock different tech paths for terrans instead of just nerfing the mine and doing something that adds almost nothing to tanks which get countered by regenmutas and vipers while they don't really make that big deal of damage on a engagement on sc2 ? I just don't get it. Bring back the total damage tanks and you can fucking nerf WM to the place they were suppossed to be, just to guard flanks, or help halting harass on expansions for mech.
On October 21 2013 03:27 Godwrath wrote: How is the TvZ winrate ? I thought it was stabilizing towards the 50% already. If blizzard doesn't really want every TvZ to be 4M, why don't they unlock different tech paths for terrans instead of just nerfing the mine and doing something that adds almost nothing to tanks which get countered by regenmutas and vipers while they don't really make that big deal of damage on a engagement on sc2 ? I just don't get it. Bring back the total damage tanks and you can fucking nerf WM to the place they were suppossed to be, just to guard flanks, or help halting harass on expansions for mech.
Sorry, using common sense is not allowed when trying to patch this game. Otherwise, it would be too easy.
On October 21 2013 03:27 Godwrath wrote: How is the TvZ winrate ? I thought it was stabilizing towards the 50% already. If blizzard doesn't really want every TvZ to be 4M, why don't they unlock different tech paths for terrans instead of just nerfing the mine and doing something that adds almost nothing to tanks which get countered by regenmutas and vipers while they don't really make that big deal of damage on a engagement on sc2 ? I just don't get it. Bring back the total damage tanks and you can fucking nerf WM to the place they were suppossed to be, just to guard flanks, or help halting harass on expansions for mech.
Sorry, using common sense is not allowed when trying to patch this game. Otherwise, it would be too easy.
Expecting a balance patch from ya , since it is 'too easy' if you use 'common sense'.
On October 20 2013 19:59 Thezzy wrote: Templar + Tempest is a lategame composition I have yet to see any Terran defeat. Feedback annihilates the PDDs and Ravens and Storm ravages the absurd amount of Vikings you need. Ghosts can get sniped and Feedbacked all the same not to mention they're mostly dead weight once Protoss adds in one or two Colossi.
The way to beat Tempest is not building Vikings, it's destroying the Protoss economy using the mobility of Bio units.
you can go watch games of thorzain where caster were completely annoyed by a stale match where zerg crushes piece by piece a skyterran +mech with static D, vipers SH corruptors.
Also Lucifron vs ICan'tRemember from a recent Dreamhack i think. Very ugly games that. Makes Infestor BL look like "the good old times"....
Don't blame mech for that, blame the god awful maps.
God awful maps? Huh, Newkirk is not really god awful map, style is ugly though. The new edition of Newkirk ofc.
Newkirk was a pretty cool map, the issue was that the Zerg decided to not use their techs to avoid standing armies. Only reason why those stalemates actually happened. Well and Terran not using Nukes.
Maps where you can split the map north to south need to be narrow rather than wide to be in any way interesting. Match Point from BW is a great example of this since players could abuse mobility by moving up or down and moving across. In SC2 we've had Daybreak and Newkirk, the Kespa newkirk wasn't as bad but these games were played on Blizzard newkirk and much like Daybreak, Newkirk and any other wide map that was also narrow it meant you could secure your entire half of the map by holding 2 very close together chokes. That just isn't good map design.
It was also why Daybreak was terrible in terms of as soon as carriers (I played mech in WoL) and Broodlord/infestor came out that it was impossible to abuse the mobility of those armies since the 2 chokes were so close it took 0 movement to go defend the path.
On October 21 2013 04:06 r1flEx wrote: does anyone have an idea on when a decision might be made on the changes going through? or for how long the balance test map is open
they're waiting until after blizzcon, so that's at least a few more weeks
On October 21 2013 03:27 Godwrath wrote: How is the TvZ winrate ? I thought it was stabilizing towards the 50% already. If blizzard doesn't really want every TvZ to be 4M, why don't they unlock different tech paths for terrans instead of just nerfing the mine and doing something that adds almost nothing to tanks which get countered by regenmutas and vipers while they don't really make that big deal of damage on a engagement on sc2 ? I just don't get it. Bring back the total damage tanks and you can fucking nerf WM to the place they were suppossed to be, just to guard flanks, or help halting harass on expansions for mech.
Sorry, using common sense is not allowed when trying to patch this game. Otherwise, it would be too easy.
Expecting a balance patch from ya , since it is 'too easy' if you use 'common sense'.
Is that you Dustin? I must admit. Your sarcastic comments are getting dull by every post.
not sure if it was mentioned, but based on the number of tank shots table on this post theDwf post on tank mech and if TvP is actually the bigger problem, especially against zealot/archon/immortal, wouldn't be better to test a change of attack speed to 2.25 ?
In reality it still takes the same number of shots but in time taken it would be like reducing a certain number of shots based on zealots and old tank speed-> <current attack speed> * <desired shots> / <current shots> = (3*3) / 4 = 2.25
3 as baseline speed. 2.25 as new test speed Think it would be an acceptable buff that affects mostly TvP still. Think the biggest things i'm not checking there are vs movement speeds, it would be more penalizing to slow units when moving out but i'm guessing people would have to be distracted to move the whole 2.25 before starting to move out, so usually just 1-2 shots as happens today. Easier to see on a test map
Thors, ultralisks and archons would also become closer on number of shots to getting killed. Protoss wise it affects mostly the units which make tank based armies so weak, they would still be strong but not that strong.
2.7 basically sounds too weak of a buff in my opinion, even against zerg which only seems to affect the relation with an ultra.
This obviously is just rough and quick calculations... but think worth to be tested abruptly and then reducing on the test map if too strong.
On October 21 2013 03:27 Godwrath wrote: How is the TvZ winrate ? I thought it was stabilizing towards the 50% already. If blizzard doesn't really want every TvZ to be 4M, why don't they unlock different tech paths for terrans instead of just nerfing the mine and doing something that adds almost nothing to tanks which get countered by regenmutas and vipers while they don't really make that big deal of damage on a engagement on sc2 ? I just don't get it. Bring back the total damage tanks and you can fucking nerf WM to the place they were suppossed to be, just to guard flanks, or help halting harass on expansions for mech.
Sorry, using common sense is not allowed when trying to patch this game. Otherwise, it would be too easy.
Expecting a balance patch from ya , since it is 'too easy' if you use 'common sense'.
Is that you Dustin? I must admit. Your sarcastic comments are getting dull by every post.
I just claim that while any of you may think that you know what is wrong with game or any point of it, you are likely do not in full complexion of this. Neither does David Kim, but he gets close to get his job done IMO.
On October 25 2013 22:41 SeeDs.pt wrote: not sure if it was mentioned, but based on the number of tank shots table on this post theDwf post on tank mech and if TvP is actually the bigger problem, especially against zealot/archon/immortal, wouldn't be better to test a change of attack speed to 2.25 ?
It's been said many times that the buff is minor. If Blizzard is not willing to even try 2.5 on a test map there is no hope for a 2.25 attack speed.
And I doubt that they feel that this will buff mech TvP. It's more of a small nudge towards a particular play-style.
On October 25 2013 22:41 SeeDs.pt wrote: not sure if it was mentioned, but based on the number of tank shots table on this post theDwf post on tank mech and if TvP is actually the bigger problem, especially against zealot/archon/immortal, wouldn't be better to test a change of attack speed to 2.25 ?
In reality it still takes the same number of shots but in time taken it would be like reducing a certain number of shots based on zealots and old tank speed-> <current attack speed> * <desired shots> / <current shots> = (3*3) / 4 = 2.25
3 as baseline speed. 2.25 as new test speed Think it would be an acceptable buff that affects mostly TvP still. Think the biggest things i'm not checking there are vs movement speeds, it would be more penalizing to slow units when moving out but i'm guessing people would have to be distracted to move the whole 2.25 before starting to move out, so usually just 1-2 shots as happens today. Easier to see on a test map
Thors, ultralisks and archons would also become closer on number of shots to getting killed. Protoss wise it affects mostly the units which make tank based armies so weak, they would still be strong but not that strong.
2.7 basically sounds too weak of a buff in my opinion, even against zerg which only seems to affect the relation with an ultra.
This obviously is just rough and quick calculations... but think worth to be tested abruptly and then reducing on the test map if too strong.
This is a reductive and overly simplistic way to look at this, for a couple reasons:
1.) Units don't operate in a vacuum. Blizzard's intent has never been to push a pure tank composition with no supporting units, nor would that be realistic or desirable. In a real game, its never going to just be Tanks en masse, they're nearly always going to have some level of support from other units. But as soon as you start adding other units into the equation, the "number of tank shots required to kill unit x" becomes a fairly meaningless abstraction because the tanks aren't the only source of damage. And on the flip side, opponents have ways to effect damage taken--guardian shield, healing from queens and medivacs, repair, etc. The overall effect being that isolating "# of shots unit x needs to kill unit y" tells us next to nothing about how it will actually play out in a game context.
2.) Reducing the time it takes to kill a unit, even if you don't reduce the number of shots, is still a substantial buff because the faster you kill a unit, the less time it has to deal damage in return. This creates a snowball effect--you kill their units slightly faster, which means you take less damage, which means more of your units live for a longer time, which means your units have more time to deal damage, which kills more of their units, etc. The line between "a strong but balanced rate of damage dealing" and "too much damage too quickly in a way that spirals out of control" is therefore quite thin, and its very easy to go overboard with a dps buff. This is especially true with splash damage units, because they aren't just killing single units faster, they're killing clumps of units faster.
Does the Tank buff go far enough? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else at this point does either. But what I do know is that there are good reasons to be cautious about how much you buff the dps of a long range splash unit, and that the only way you're going to see if a buff goes too far or not far enough is by testing it, rather than creating some oversimplified spreadsheet.
On October 25 2013 22:41 SeeDs.pt wrote: not sure if it was mentioned, but based on the number of tank shots table on this post theDwf post on tank mech and if TvP is actually the bigger problem, especially against zealot/archon/immortal, wouldn't be better to test a change of attack speed to 2.25 ?
In reality it still takes the same number of shots but in time taken it would be like reducing a certain number of shots based on zealots and old tank speed-> <current attack speed> * <desired shots> / <current shots> = (3*3) / 4 = 2.25
3 as baseline speed. 2.25 as new test speed Think it would be an acceptable buff that affects mostly TvP still. Think the biggest things i'm not checking there are vs movement speeds, it would be more penalizing to slow units when moving out but i'm guessing people would have to be distracted to move the whole 2.25 before starting to move out, so usually just 1-2 shots as happens today. Easier to see on a test map
Thors, ultralisks and archons would also become closer on number of shots to getting killed. Protoss wise it affects mostly the units which make tank based armies so weak, they would still be strong but not that strong.
2.7 basically sounds too weak of a buff in my opinion, even against zerg which only seems to affect the relation with an ultra.
This obviously is just rough and quick calculations... but think worth to be tested abruptly and then reducing on the test map if too strong.
This is a reductive and overly simplistic way to look at this, for a couple reasons:
1.) Units don't operate in a vacuum. Blizzard's intent has never been to push a pure tank composition with no supporting units, nor would that be realistic or desirable. In a real game, its never going to just be Tanks en masse, they're nearly always going to have some level of support from other units. But as soon as you start adding other units into the equation, the "number of tank shots required to kill unit x" becomes a fairly meaningless abstraction because the tanks aren't the only source of damage. And on the flip side, opponents have ways to effect damage taken--guardian shield, healing from queens and medivacs, repair, etc. The overall effect being that isolating "# of shots unit x needs to kill unit y" tells us next to nothing about how it will actually play out in a game context.
2.) Reducing the time it takes to kill a unit, even if you don't reduce the number of shots, is still a substantial buff because the faster you kill a unit, the less time it has to deal damage in return. This creates a snowball effect--you kill their units slightly faster, which means you take less damage, which means more of your units live for a longer time, which means your units have more time to deal damage, which kills more of their units, etc. The line between "a strong but balanced rate of damage dealing" and "too much damage too quickly in a way that spirals out of control" is therefore quite thin, and its very easy to go overboard with a dps buff. This is especially true with splash damage units, because they aren't just killing single units faster, they're killing clumps of units faster.
Does the Tank buff go far enough? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else at this point does either. But what I do know is that there are good reasons to be cautious about how much you buff the dps of a long range splash unit, and that the only way you're going to see if a buff goes too far or not far enough is by testing it, rather than creating some oversimplified spreadsheet.
I agree , thought i added something that pointed to being simplistic but the wording wasn't enough. I just picked an interesting post about it and extended calculations on it to see direct effects. Ofc it has more effects but it's impossible to model that simply, the point is to consider on a test map not going straight live. If we can't abuse (which the mine was at start so why not the tank?) on a test map where will we?
the time taken/number of shots only take a higher relevance on units above 3-4 shots from the baseline anyway. But even that can be calculated in a similar way too although a bit more complex.
it's impossible to model all combinations and factors... it would need some AI algorithms and still take a while... Hence why we look at it a bit simplistic, have a gut feeling on "how bad would it be?" and test it.
On that table the 10% are pretty much irrelevant on all matchups, and from posts i read here and there people don't notice differences while playing either.
so basically i'm agreeing with you on all points, just adding that these oversimplied spreadsheets gives an idea of how bad/good it can be in a simplified way. To me it's still worth putting on a test map, i'm assuming they tested some but i have no info on what they test internally so i have to give opinions based on what i know, or what they don't share.
On October 25 2013 22:41 SeeDs.pt wrote: not sure if it was mentioned, but based on the number of tank shots table on this post theDwf post on tank mech and if TvP is actually the bigger problem, especially against zealot/archon/immortal, wouldn't be better to test a change of attack speed to 2.25 ?
It's been said many times that the buff is minor. If Blizzard is not willing to even try 2.5 on a test map there is no hope for a 2.25 attack speed.
And I doubt that they feel that this will buff mech TvP. It's more of a small nudge towards a particular play-style.
the mentioned i was referring was the number of tank shots and that post. Couldnt find much in the search without too many hits and didnt seem to allow search in just 1 thread. Do agree and think they wont do anything unfortunately, just adding that i also think it should be tested more agressively at first test map iterations and then reduced. Instead i ended up seeing more posts about people not noticing a difference. Can be done like that too but i guess a significant change just takes longer to test.
It would kinda reduce the number of tanks needed for critical mass like status with the current stats at least. Which acts almost like a supply reduction. For TvP alone probably the safest would be the gimmick buff mentioned somewhere before, about extra damage to shields instead, but that would probably also make it overkill to stalkers/archons and almost the same to immortals. But i really hardly know much about it, i play mostly zerg and dunno how well ghosts mix in, considering gas costs and all.
Having a poll here is totally useless, as terran is the minority race by far (do I even need a source to back up this statement?), where most players you'll see, especially on ladder plays Zerg.
On October 25 2013 22:41 SeeDs.pt wrote: not sure if it was mentioned, but based on the number of tank shots table on this post theDwf post on tank mech and if TvP is actually the bigger problem, especially against zealot/archon/immortal, wouldn't be better to test a change of attack speed to 2.25 ?
It's been said many times that the buff is minor. If Blizzard is not willing to even try 2.5 on a test map there is no hope for a 2.25 attack speed.
And I doubt that they feel that this will buff mech TvP. It's more of a small nudge towards a particular play-style.
the mentioned i was referring was the number of tank shots and that post. Couldnt find much in the search without too many hits and didnt seem to allow search in just 1 thread. Do agree and think they wont do anything unfortunately, just adding that i also think it should be tested more agressively at first test map iterations and then reduced. Instead i ended up seeing more posts about people not noticing a difference. Can be done like that too but i guess a significant change just takes longer to test.
It would kinda reduce the number of tanks needed for critical mass like status with the current stats at least. Which acts almost like a supply reduction. For TvP alone probably the safest would be the gimmick buff mentioned somewhere before, about extra damage to shields instead, but that would probably also make it overkill to stalkers/archons and almost the same to immortals. But i really hardly know much about it, i play mostly zerg and dunno how well ghosts mix in, considering gas costs and all.
Since you talked about supply reduction, I just wanted to bring something to attention that is relevant to the tank discussion.
In BW, one reaver took up 4 supply and dealt 100 damage In SC2, 3 Colossus take up 18 supple and deal 90 damage
Both do the same job of destroying units clumps at a time, but while the Reaver allowed protoss 14 more supply of wiggle room at the cost of difficult micro, Colossus are mostly useless *until* you get the 3-4 critical mass.
This is due to damage output. 300/200 is too much to deal a mere 30 damage a shot. Reavers gave protoss 100 damage a shot for 200/100. The end result is that you take up 4-5 times the amount of supply to perform the task that 6 supply of reaver/shuttle used to take up resulting in deathball play.
Siege Tanks are suffering the same thing. SC2 tanks take up 25% more gas and 50% more supply per tank while not only dealing less damage but facing foes with more anti-tank tech than BW did. Players will only use units that are effective at hitting attack breakpoints. TvT is fine because marines die quickly to tanks. This is not the same with zealot/Immortal. If mech play wants to get big you need to provide a way for terran to circumvent immortal shields and be able to threaten zealots.
This could be anything from awkward +shields buff, or simply buffing emp, or giving the Raven specifically anti-protoss spells, etc...
But there is no way Mech will come back in TvP if tanks are weaker than BW and the tools Protoss have against tanks are stronger than in BW. Why? Because the fight was even back then, cutting the legs off one side and buffing the other side will make the matchup inherently uneven.
On October 25 2013 23:50 dukem wrote: Having a poll here is totally useless, as terran is the minority race by far (do I even need a source to back up this statement?), where most players you'll see, especially on ladder plays Zerg.
Zerg mad, zerg vote approve.
Just that on TL.net Zerg seems to be the least represented race. (according to the reasoning for the "Zerg Pro Help Me Thread" and other polls that were around)
In BW, one reaver took up 4 supply and dealt 100 damage In SC2, 3 Colossus take up 18 supple and deal 90 damage
I'm pretty sure if Colossi cost less supply while doing way more damage, all that would happen would be people would just build Colossi + antiair. It wouldn't be lots of single Colossi spread out across the map, it would just be like 20 Colossi in a big clump a-moving across the map oneshotting everything that exists on the ground.
On October 25 2013 23:50 dukem wrote: Having a poll here is totally useless, as terran is the minority race by far (do I even need a source to back up this statement?), where most players you'll see, especially on ladder plays Zerg.
Zerg mad, zerg vote approve.
Terran is played by at least more players than zerg is actually. Not to mention that this map has 3 free bases.
On October 25 2013 23:50 dukem wrote: Having a poll here is totally useless, as terran is the minority race by far (do I even need a source to back up this statement?), where most players you'll see, especially on ladder plays Zerg.
Zerg mad, zerg vote approve.
Terran is played by at least more players than zerg is actually. Not to mention that this map has 3 free bases.
Wat? In what league?
I'm in Masters and for this whole season it seems like I'm playing Zerg 6 out of 10 games.
EDIT: Which is fine by me as I have a pretty good TvZ winrate.
On October 20 2013 19:59 Thezzy wrote: Templar + Tempest is a lategame composition I have yet to see any Terran defeat. Feedback annihilates the PDDs and Ravens and Storm ravages the absurd amount of Vikings you need. Ghosts can get sniped and Feedbacked all the same not to mention they're mostly dead weight once Protoss adds in one or two Colossi.
The way to beat Tempest is not building Vikings, it's destroying the Protoss economy using the mobility of Bio units.
its not necessarily the case always .. i saw avilo raping tempest + templar with raven(he built like 20 ravens)+viking+hellion(to snipe templars) .. it was weird but almost always worked out for him .. hes gm on eu/na even though its not on the highest level(korea gm) .. i suppose it counts right ?
On October 25 2013 23:50 dukem wrote: Having a poll here is totally useless, as terran is the minority race by far (do I even need a source to back up this statement?), where most players you'll see, especially on ladder plays Zerg.
Zerg mad, zerg vote approve.
Terran is played by at least more players than zerg is actually. Not to mention that this map has 3 free bases.
Wat? In what league?
I'm in Masters and for this whole season it seems like I'm playing Zerg 6 out of 10 games.
EDIT: Which is fine by me as I have a pretty good TvZ winrate.
Now I come where TvZ is by far my worst matchup
Technically lolfail9001 is correct, Terran is played as much as Zerg. However what was probably *cough* a small oversight on his part he forgot to mention that is only because bronze has way more terrans. In silver it is just a bit more zerg, and after that alot more zerg in every league. Considering I think it is save to say that those visiting TL will generally be higher ranked than random players, there is a good chance there are here more zerg than terran players.
Just checked for me personally, 56% more games vs zerg than vs terran, 34% more vs toss than vs terran @ high diamond.
On October 25 2013 23:50 dukem wrote: Having a poll here is totally useless, as terran is the minority race by far (do I even need a source to back up this statement?), where most players you'll see, especially on ladder plays Zerg.
Zerg mad, zerg vote approve.
Terran is played by at least more players than zerg is actually. Not to mention that this map has 3 free bases.
Wat? In what league?
I'm in Masters and for this whole season it seems like I'm playing Zerg 6 out of 10 games.
EDIT: Which is fine by me as I have a pretty good TvZ winrate.
Now I come where TvZ is by far my worst matchup
Technically lolfail9001 is correct, Terran is played as much as Zerg. However what was probably *cough* a small oversight on his part he forgot to mention that is only because bronze has way more terrans. In silver it is just a bit more zerg, and after that alot more zerg in every league. Considering I think it is save to say that those visiting TL will generally be higher ranked than random players, there is a good chance there are here more zerg than terran players.
Just checked for me personally, 56% more games vs zerg than vs terran, 34% more vs toss than vs terran @ high diamond.
I do not have absolutely correct statistics on amount of terrans in low leagues, so i have no clue.
In BW, one reaver took up 4 supply and dealt 100 damage In SC2, 3 Colossus take up 18 supple and deal 90 damage
I'm pretty sure if Colossi cost less supply while doing way more damage, all that would happen would be people would just build Colossi + antiair. It wouldn't be lots of single Colossi spread out across the map, it would just be like 20 Colossi in a big clump a-moving across the map oneshotting everything that exists on the ground.
And yet no one made 18 supplies worth of reavers... go figure?
Well, I actually tried to make mass reavers in moneymaps while typing in all caps DEATH BY BANANA SLUG!!!!!!!!
In BW, one reaver took up 4 supply and dealt 100 damage In SC2, 3 Colossus take up 18 supple and deal 90 damage
I'm pretty sure if Colossi cost less supply while doing way more damage, all that would happen would be people would just build Colossi + antiair. It wouldn't be lots of single Colossi spread out across the map, it would just be like 20 Colossi in a big clump a-moving across the map oneshotting everything that exists on the ground.
And yet no one made 18 supplies worth of reavers... go figure?
Well, I actually tried to make mass reavers in moneymaps while typing in all caps DEATH BY BANANA SLUG!!!!!!!!
But that's not the same thing.
Reavers took a lot of skillful micro, and microing more than a single one took a lot of effort to the point where it was not even worth it most of the time. Colossus on the other hand...you could literally teach monkeys or other smart mammals to a-move them through the map.
In BW, one reaver took up 4 supply and dealt 100 damage In SC2, 3 Colossus take up 18 supple and deal 90 damage
I'm pretty sure if Colossi cost less supply while doing way more damage, all that would happen would be people would just build Colossi + antiair. It wouldn't be lots of single Colossi spread out across the map, it would just be like 20 Colossi in a big clump a-moving across the map oneshotting everything that exists on the ground.
And yet no one made 18 supplies worth of reavers... go figure?
Well, I actually tried to make mass reavers in moneymaps while typing in all caps DEATH BY BANANA SLUG!!!!!!!!
But that's not the same thing.
Reavers took a lot of skillful micro, and microing more than a single one took a lot of effort to the point where it was not even worth it most of the time. Colossus on the other hand...you could literally teach monkeys or other smart mammals to a-move them through the map.
You don't *have* to micro reavers. Once you get to about 12 or so of them you can just psuedo clump and a-move them to victory as the cooldowns of at least one of them will always be up at that point. And at such long range only air units bug em. I've played the mass unit wars in moneymaps; so long as they don't go siegetank/air you win most of the time assuming they don't bother you for 20 minutes.
The difference between the two is that you could shrink down reaver numbers to just 1 unit, and with enough control you can get more than your money's worth with it. Trying to do shuttle play with a colossus produces less than simpply warping in 3-6 zealots. The opposite is not true when it comes to reavers since 1 reaver in a shuttle does a lot more than 4 zealots in a shuttle.
So while you *have* to turtle with colossus until you get 20ish supply worth of them, you can start being aggressive with just the first Reaver.
On October 26 2013 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:You don't *have* to micro reavers. Once you get to about 12 or so of them you can just psuedo clump and a-move them to victory as the cooldowns of at least one of them will always be up at that point.
Wait...what?
On October 26 2013 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote: I've played the mass unit wars in moneymaps; so long as they don't go siegetank/air you win most of the time assuming they don't bother you for 20 minutes.
Rofl! Yeah whatever, I'll just disregard your post after this statement.
On October 26 2013 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:You don't *have* to micro reavers. Once you get to about 12 or so of them you can just psuedo clump and a-move them to victory as the cooldowns of at least one of them will always be up at that point.
On October 26 2013 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote: I've played the mass unit wars in moneymaps; so long as they don't go siegetank/air you win most of the time assuming they don't bother you for 20 minutes.
Rofl! Yeah whatever, I'll just disregard your post after this statement.
You tried to make make the argument about reavers requiring high micro. The truth is that once it reaches a critical mass it's ridiculously hard to stop.
Sure the mass of slugs can't run back to your base to save it from a drop, is so slow people can simply expand wherever your army isn't at, etc...
But plain old critical mass fights? Most ground compositions die to the mass aoe without firing a shot.
Now if you want to talk about effective use of resources, there are plenty of better options. You need zealots/goons for mobility, storms for low supply aoe, shuttles for harassment, observers for spotting, etc...
Simply spamming reavers will only win you the ground fight at the cost of all your bases because everything is faster and cheaper than you. In order for reavers to keep up with an army you need shuttles and since you need an army to not die from doom drops and backstabs you are tactically forced to only have a few reavers at most.
But getting 20 supply of reavers to win a head on fight? Keep them in the back and a-move. The only advantage 18 supply of colossus have over 20 supply of reavers is that colossus can retreat but reavers can't.
New balance patch will come next week(mine/tank change etc).
They are also looking into Swarm Hosts right now but they have no conclusion. David said they are looking into whether passive style or more aggresssive style is better. What kind of changes could come he did not say.
They are also pretty happy with the win rates within the leagues in general and they focus on balaning for pro level matches. Future goals are to open more windows of opportunity for players (David's example was TvP where P starts being aggressive with Stalkers, then gets pushed by back Marauders, pushing forward again with Colossi and terran using a window where he drops into the main of the P...)
On November 09 2013 06:54 saddaromma wrote: Thanks, please keep on posting this stuff.
As far as balance goes thats pretty much it, sadly. I missed the first part of the panel but it was mainly about Arcade anyway(which will be completely free in the future btw). Right now it's about WCS 2014.
On November 09 2013 06:54 saddaromma wrote: Thanks, please keep on posting this stuff.
As far as balance goes thats pretty much it, sadly. I missed the first part of the panel but it was mainly about Arcade anyway(which will be completely free in the future btw). Right now it's about WCS 2014.
There was some stuff about clan decals. They have a nifty pic of a Teamliquid decal on the official SC2 twitter.
What's funny is that you also need mines to defend allins, so terrans won't win much in the weeks coming. I'm going back to my good old 888 because at least i'll have a chance in the early early.
On October 26 2013 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:You don't *have* to micro reavers. Once you get to about 12 or so of them you can just psuedo clump and a-move them to victory as the cooldowns of at least one of them will always be up at that point.
Wait...what?
On October 26 2013 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote: I've played the mass unit wars in moneymaps; so long as they don't go siegetank/air you win most of the time assuming they don't bother you for 20 minutes.
Rofl! Yeah whatever, I'll just disregard your post after this statement.
You tried to make make the argument about reavers requiring high micro. The truth is that once it reaches a critical mass it's ridiculously hard to stop.
Sure the mass of slugs can't run back to your base to save it from a drop, is so slow people can simply expand wherever your army isn't at, etc...
But plain old critical mass fights? Most ground compositions die to the mass aoe without firing a shot.
Now if you want to talk about effective use of resources, there are plenty of better options. You need zealots/goons for mobility, storms for low supply aoe, shuttles for harassment, observers for spotting, etc...
Simply spamming reavers will only win you the ground fight at the cost of all your bases because everything is faster and cheaper than you. In order for reavers to keep up with an army you need shuttles and since you need an army to not die from doom drops and backstabs you are tactically forced to only have a few reavers at most.
But getting 20 supply of reavers to win a head on fight? Keep them in the back and a-move. The only advantage 18 supply of colossus have over 20 supply of reavers is that colossus can retreat but reavers can't.
What? No. Huge difference between colossous and reaver.
8colossous amove against ground units such as hydralisks, the colossous win and not much the hydras can do 8reavers amove against hydralisks, the hydras can win with micro. They shoot once every 3.78~seconds.
Protoss doesnt work the same was in bw as in sc2 at all. Its a huge difference.
Point is, reavers on their own is really shit. They cant reach a critical amount the same was colossous do.
But getting 20 supply of reavers to win a head on fight? Keep them in the back and a-move. The only advantage 18 supply of colossus have over 20 supply of reavers is that colossus can retreat but reavers can't
On November 10 2013 08:16 TurboMaN wrote: If you see JD playing ZvT there is no need to nerf the widow mine.
I think there is, because if you dont it'll be bio mine and nothing else forever.
Nerfing mine doesn't make much sense unless terran has been beating zerg too much recently. And i don't think that's the case nowadays. Zerg have adapted quite well to widow mines. If you want to see more compositions then you need to make those other units better, particularly in a matchup like tvz where the Zergs composition often tends to be in response to what the Terran is doing.
Hopefully the tank buff is interesting and does more then just turn tvt into mechfest.
I am confused the oracle buff is going through since protoss seem entirely content to make that unit as it is now and it's not like they needed a buff in the pre medivac stage of tvp.
On November 10 2013 08:16 TurboMaN wrote: If you see JD playing ZvT there is no need to nerf the widow mine.
I think there is, because if you dont it'll be bio mine and nothing else forever.
Either that or they need to buff mech more and make it so it's strategically worth mixing up your play.
Imo mech will never be viable in a matchup other than TvT. DK and his balance team have been testing around for 3 years now! You just have to read it again, it's been three years since 2010 (release of the game).
Flawed statistic because its a lower percentile of terran players that gets matched up against a higher percentile of zerg/protoss players. Thus the terran players that faces the protoss/zergs are superioer relatively.
i dont get the entire point of using winrates from ladder as for balance purposes anyways, isnt mmr supposed to give you a 50% winrate anyways? even IF it was 60% winrate in terran's favor in the matchup TvZ, what does it really mean? that he is worse at the other 2 matchups?
Flawed statistic because its a lower percentile of terran players that gets matched up against a higher percentile of zerg/protoss players. Thus the terran players that faces the protoss/zergs are superioer relatively.
I do hope the widow mine nerf doesn't end up being a huge deal, there have been mentions that it also helps terran when lings can't just wrap around the marines and cause as much friendly fire. Maybe it will balance itself out somewhat and terran will continue to see the same relative success.
One design issue with terran is how vulnerable it is in the early game compared to its opponents, this is something they should look at if terran starts underperforming after the patch.
On November 10 2013 11:10 NKexquisite wrote: When does the new patch come out? When the new season starts? Are both of those things happening on Tuesday during their regular maintenance window?
Hopefully...
I just played on one of the balance maps and the new roaches are super fun. Is this one season before a new season for WCS?
On November 10 2013 11:10 NKexquisite wrote: When does the new patch come out? When the new season starts? Are both of those things happening on Tuesday during their regular maintenance window?
Hopefully...
I just played on one of the balance maps and the new roaches are super fun. Is this one season before a new season for WCS?
On November 10 2013 11:10 NKexquisite wrote: When does the new patch come out? When the new season starts? Are both of those things happening on Tuesday during their regular maintenance window?
Hopefully...
I just played on one of the balance maps and the new roaches are super fun. Is this one season before a new season for WCS?
Cool, thanks for the info. So happy they're doing an off-season for balance feedback and map feedback. Should be a good time. And the perfect time to be getting back into SC. I took a 3 month break, and goddamn, it's like coming home.
I really like that Blizzard seems to have settled on the "off season" as the time to make balance patches. it gives everyone time to practice and get used to them, rather than instituting changes while tournaments are ongoing and upsetting everything in the process.
On November 12 2013 02:28 awesomoecalypse wrote: I really like that Blizzard seems to have settled on the "off season" as the time to make balance patches. it gives everyone time to practice and get used to them, rather than instituting changes while tournaments are ongoing and upsetting everything in the process.
I suppose IEM Singapore, Dreamhack winter, Redbull battlegrounds and Homestory cup don't count? Because otherwise now is the time when plenty of tournaments happens just as the patch drops.
On November 12 2013 02:28 awesomoecalypse wrote: I really like that Blizzard seems to have settled on the "off season" as the time to make balance patches. it gives everyone time to practice and get used to them, rather than instituting changes while tournaments are ongoing and upsetting everything in the process.
I suppose IEM Singapore, Dreamhack winter, Redbull battlegrounds and Homestory cup don't count? Because otherwise now is the time when plenty of tournaments happens just as the patch drops.
This sounds awfully and unnecessarily aggressive >.<
I love HSC and Dreamhack, and they are certainly important. But, as none of them award WCS points, which happen to lead to the big $100k first prize tournament, I think most pros would rather have it now as opposed to right before a big WCS event that could ultimately affect their performance in one of the lead-up tournaments.
Sorry for being aggressive then but Blizzard could have easily waited for new year period. Doing a major patch with 5 off-line tournaments within a month is simply BS.
Unless the friendly fire reduction turns out to be a buff, I think this matchup is gonna be really rough.
Tanks were only in wol because after you traded with banes, any damage you put in mutas remained. Now with regenmutas, tanks with 11% buff is not gonna trade well enough against banes to allow you to swing momentum against muta.
I suspect tank buff is only to address roach bane busts.
On November 12 2013 02:28 awesomoecalypse wrote: I really like that Blizzard seems to have settled on the "off season" as the time to make balance patches. it gives everyone time to practice and get used to them, rather than instituting changes while tournaments are ongoing and upsetting everything in the process.
I suppose IEM Singapore, Dreamhack winter, Redbull battlegrounds and Homestory cup don't count? Because otherwise now is the time when plenty of tournaments happens just as the patch drops.
All of those are weekend tournaments which don't tie into WCS. There's a big difference between patching the game now, vs. patching it while a WCS season is ongoing.
On November 12 2013 02:28 awesomoecalypse wrote: I really like that Blizzard seems to have settled on the "off season" as the time to make balance patches. it gives everyone time to practice and get used to them, rather than instituting changes while tournaments are ongoing and upsetting everything in the process.
I suppose IEM Singapore, Dreamhack winter, Redbull battlegrounds and Homestory cup don't count? Because otherwise now is the time when plenty of tournaments happens just as the patch drops.
All of those are weekend tournaments which don't tie into WCS. There's a big difference between patching the game now, vs. patching it while a WCS season is ongoing.
The would be like Dota 2 and drop a massive patch during the semi finals? Patches have to happen at some point and tub can't be delayed for every single event, because there will always be another event.
blizzard pls show some balls and use the PTR Server as a playground for fun. new. innovative stuff. maps ~ give lalushs micro a try. just try a different eco system. try to change the warpgate tech. try some bw units ... modify them for sc2 etc... add player cards to profil. purchase wcs player pics (30cents ... players earn some money etc). the PTR can be so powerful.