In the past six months, Blizzard has made a series of proposed balance changes to StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm. While not all of the proposed changes eventually get implemented, the TL Strategy team is always eager to reach out to Professional players to get their opinions on the changes Blizzard informs the community of. If you are interested in seeing our previous interviews regarding proposed balance changes you can click the following links: First Article;Second Article;Third Article.
The changes Blizzard are looking at were described by David Kim on the official Blizzard forums as follows:
Medivac Medivac harass has been getting weaker since the beginning of HotS due to players improving at defending against them. If we increase the strength of Medivacs, we’d not only help out Terran on both matchups, but also help provide even more action-packed games to watch. We wonder if buffing the unload speed or increasing the duration of the speed boost slightly would help in a positive way.
Widow Mine Widow Mines are quite core in both TvP and TvZ. They’re also one of the most exciting units to watch and create lots of diverse moments depending on the players’ interaction with them within each engagement. We’re currently considering a slight increase to the splash radius of Widow Mines, which we believe could be a good direction to explore.
TeamLiquid has reached out to a small number of Professionals from the American and European WCS regions to get their thoughts on Blizzard's proposed changes.
Do you think there's a problem in TvZ? In which area?
coL_qxc: The two biggest problems I see with TvZ regarding creep and Terran's lack of good gas & end game units (usually these are the same. I would like to see creep recede slightly faster, even if it meant it was slightly easier to spread as the game quickly becomes un-winnable if Terran makes an early mistake that gives Zerg even a few minutes of map control. TvZ is extremely dependent on creep and creep feels un-dynamic in its creation/destruction.
Liquid`Snute: A classic ZvT plays out the same every time, Zerg defends for ages and Terran has a wide range of builds that can kill Zerg before the Muta cloud is up. The match-up might be close to balanced as a whole but most Terrans try to finish the game as soon as possible. Clever Zergs will never attack off of creep until they have some sort of fully upgraded 200/200 army with a muta cloud - or if they took an amazing defensive engagement. It's very important to look at the win-rates relative to game length and compositions when evaluating the state of this match-up. Especially looking at the correlation between Mutalisk count and win rate would be interesting.
Acer.Nerchio: Yes, i think drops are too powerful and zerg is too weak outside of creep while being too strong on creep.
ROOT.Iaguz: Maybe a slight one. I think for most of HotS up until the last 6 months, Zerg was the harder race to play, but they've trained themselves to deal with most of our common timings and tightened up all aspects of Ling/Bane/Muta style play (nerfs to widow mines and hellbats surely didn't hurt, of course). Add in favorable maps and of course Zerg appears to have an edge, and now it's up to Terrans to tighten up their execution in turn.
Cascade_DIMAGA: I think Zerg need more time to discover all builds of terran, nowadays there is a lot of new builds with Hellbats so its difficult to know which one exactly it will be and its tough overall right now in ZvT.
EG.Xenocider: The problem currently in TvZ is that Terran (assuming played off of bio) has no way to deal with mass banelings in the late game, especially on creep. With the nerf of the widow mine (combined with Z figuring out how to deal with over time) Terran actually has no way of dealing with an amount of banelings that rivals the amount of bio. The second, and perhaps the defining flaw in TvZ prevalence of the muta. The muta allows the Zerg army to scale much better than the Terran army. If Zerg wishes, they can go to 30 mutas and never allow the Terran to move out with more than 3/4 of their army. The mutas can come back to the fight and help snowball the victory, or the ground army can win without the mutas provided that it's a good engagement on creep. The mutas can also cause havok in the Terran's base when there is a stalemate. When both the threat of mutas and the threat of banelings +any tech transition grows into the late game, the Terran will always feel as if he is playing against the timer. (because he/she is) TvZ currently is decided on the first 2 medivacs at the highest level, if they can do damage (which they shouldn't provided perfect control from both sides) then the Terran is at a disadvantageous position.
Do you think there's a problem in TvP? In which area?
coL_qxc: Scouting is very hard in TvP. If you're a bit unlucky with your scans or scouting or the Protoss is a bit trickier/skilled at denying scouting than most it can feel impossible to prepare correctly. I don't know if it's a problem as much as a design flaw, but I think photon overcharge needs a slight rework. Right now it feels excessively strong and prevents a huge amount of early aggression from Terran. I think if photon overcharge cost 50 mana, lasted 40 seconds and had a 60 second cooldown it could be a move in the right direction. This creates more windows of vulnerability while also allowing the Protoss more opportunities to use time warp as a single spell use wouldn't be as expensive which would hopefully create more dynamic play. I don't like end game vs protoss, but that might just be me. Warp gate has always been incredibly frustrating - especially warp prism play. 10 zealot & 3 dt warp-in in my main feels so dumb. Often this match-up feels incredibly easy to lose and nearly impossible to win if it goes to the late game as storm prevents major counter attacks while losing a single engagement as Terran often seems to end the game completely. I don't know how or if this needs to be fixed, but that's my observation.
Property.MorroW: i think TvP is pretty ok but scv pulls are very strong on some of the maps. the new ladder map pool it will be easier for Protoss to defend.
ROOT_Iaguz: Protoss is kinda similar in that there's only one really effective strategy against them (marauders + medivacs, in case of emergencies pull scv's or make ghosts) and they've spent a lot of time learning how to handle the dangerous Terran midgame. Their late-game is still superior and they're always coming up with devious strategies or timings to confound Terrans and steal wins.
If you go by the fact we haven't won a GSL in basically forever and that Terran representation in Code S has for the past few seasons been at an all time low and that only the Crown Prince of Summer has been the only one to win tournaments since October last year and that the ro8's of the recent MLG and Dreamhack and GSL feature only a single Terran among them then maybe a bit of a buff isn't such a bad thing.
ROOT_Minigun: Yes. I think there are not enough Terran openers compared to the protoss ones. This has been dealt with somewhat just due to making maps where blink isn't as good anymore, and Terran's have started to figure it out. Mainly the problem with Terran is getting their the "perfect" composition. Getting there is EXTREMELY difficult, because the Protoss player will attack you before you can get to the stage where you have 15-20 ghosts, and a good viking count. I think Terran falls off badly somewhere after the 3 base mark once the Protoss is set up I think their early game is fine if they had some more options.
XMG_Lilbow: i think the TvP in terms of win-rate is globally balanced, but it's obviously harder to win for the Terran players because the Protoss have so much different all-ins in early game, which are pretty easy to execute but require a perfect scout and decision making from Terran, meanwhile the mid-game is Terran too, the Protoss just can't attack or he is all in, and the late game is a bit Protoss favored i think, mostly because of the Tempests which make the Protoss take the perfect fight.
EG.Xenocider: TvP right now is basically just drill into the Protoss so that you don't get into the late game. The threat of Tempests and more importantly templar make TvP ridiculously hard in the late game. I talked to bbyong and he said that TvP lategame is hard mostly because of feedback which is devastating to packs of ghosts. It's hard to say whether midgame is favored in either way because in the current meta game it's just a stalemate between early blink stalkers and drops. In the early game Protoss more openings than Terran but it's not really that important if the Terran plays well.
Liquid`MaNa: I think there is. I feel the match up is overall fun to play, or at least it used to, before they changed widow mine splash radious to +shields. The reason why it was fun to play is that there was high templar zealot style possible to play. Now, with the widow mine change, the zealots don't stand a chance and EVERY shot of widow mine at the protoss unit is already cost efficient (exception being only one probe kill for one shot). So once the widow mine shot something, it was already worth the investment, not to mention the splash radious to kill the key gas units (sentries, high templars) or severely damage the zealot clumps. Now, in my opinion the only possible tech route is the colossus and even though it is good and not directly countered it makes every game look exactly the same or very similiar. As much as protoss has a very big variety of builds in early game, the middle game always stays the same. Late game PvsT also feels like it has a problem. As long as both players are agressive through out the entire game - it's fine. But if two players sit and macro for 20 minutes without exchanging, the defenders advantage gets too big and neither of sides can attack each other. I don't like that Terran can have around 10 scvs for gas mining and rest is only army (because of mules mining minerals) as well as constant scanning in the endgame, because the terran usually had around 15 orbitals ready to call down mules or scans. Sure, protoss has the oracle with relevation and it's a great ability, but it actually costs supply and money to see the terran army. It's very likely that the oracle will die to vikings with relevation being casted. That only applies to the big maps though, Alterzim for example.
coL_qxc: I don't think either of these changes address what the actual issues with Terran are, they simply buff the alternative solutions players have come up with. Can't win the late game? Out multi-task your opponent with Medivacs. Widow mines seem fine as they are. if they were buffed it would help, but it doesn't seem like the correct approach. Terran's weakness is more due to inflexibility in changing tech and lack of late game tech options.
Liquid`Snute: Buffing Medivacs (and to some extent Mines) will only encourage more aggression from Terran. Terran could benefit from having viable tech options to the 3base 4M-train, something that can compete with a greedy 4-base Zerg without auto-losing. Tanks, (Thors), Turrets, Ghost, BCs... It's just very hard to balance. Zerg will always use a Mutalisk cloud and if a Terran follows the game up with mechanic units, Zerg will just go Swarm Host. There is no easy way for Terran to play against something like this, besides the early build orders and being overly aggressive.
Property.MorroW: i think buffing Terrans ability to harass in mid-game with Medivacs is not targeting the issue which is that Terran falters in the late game without a complete mech composition. right now Terrans are not sure whether widow mines or Hellbats are stronger to use in TvZ, after a mine buff it might become pure widow mines without Hellbats again. whichever the case i don't oppose a mine buff. The issue for bio is their inability to fight Zerg in late game and mech doesnt take use of widow mines.
Acer.Nerchio: Blizzard has no clue what they are doing - Medivac buff is absolutely ridiculous. Shift-queued drops are already really powerful and they outrun Mutalisks after clicking 1 button. Terran has the most potential for multi harass and it would break TvT. Mines could probably be a little bit stronger but I don't think Terrans are doing that bad against Zerg especially with the last Hellion buff.
ROOT.Iaguz: They're good but uncreative. I'm not going to say no to positive Terran changes, but these aren't ones that will make for different games which is kind of what you want in a patch. Most of the changes done to HotS have either been about nerfing stupidly op shit (hellbats and PvT blink stalker openers) or about trying to open up new interesting styles to keep the game fresh (hellbats again, also hydras, tanks, DT's and more), but this patch doesn't do either. Medivacs and Mines are already good units, we use them all the time, they're fun.
It just seems like Blizzard would rather stay super focused on LotV (the thing that actually makes them money so fair enough I guess), and give a quick simple fix to Terran. Which is frustrating but oh well it's something and like I said I'm not going to say no to it.
Cascade_DIMAGA:Honestly I was a bit shocked when i read this because Medivacs already very strong unit for 100-100 resourses and 2 Supply limit in my opinion, but that's only their thoughts and they are just trying to do something so we will see how it will work out. I can be obviously wrong cause i'm only Zerg player and i'm thinking kinda from one side, so gl to balance team. I don't know about TvP but in TvZ Polt shows mass widow mines in late game with bio and it works quite well so widow mine still good in TvZ.
ROOT_Minigun: I don't like the new changes. This does nothing to effect what I just explained above. Their early game doesn't need a boost in this way.
XMG_Lilbow: Stronger widow mines is probably a good thing for TvZ, but i think that for TvP these changes are not really adapted to the situation: the mid game Terran is already very strong so i think the up should be about late or early game, like nerf oracle or maybe make the nuke stronger? Yeah the nuke in late game can be painful on some maps (hi king sejong), now imagine if the nuke just shoot in less time, like 15 seconds for example (it's 20 right now). Positioning nuke would become "usable" i think, but the harass in late-game would be way stronger, Protoss only have 10 secs to find where is the nuke (yea because if u find it in the last 5 seconds u will probably loose some probes) which can be very hard if you have 5 base, and if the Terran know where to aim with the nuke, the red point is just invisible and the only way to guess where it is is to listen the noise of the nuke which is not really what you want to do when you are in late game and when you have a lot of macro to do.
EG.Xenocider: The widow mine buff helps in TvZ to deal with the baneling issue, not relevant against the mutas. Useless in TvP because the meta is blink stalker/colossus. Medivacs will help in both matchups but don't really address the underlying issues described earlier.
Liquid`MaNa: Both of them are complete bullshit in my opinion. I don't understand the thought proccess from Blizzard in that regard. Terran is the strongest race in the midgame and surviving that part as the opposite race is very hard. Therefor, they don't need any new solution in middle game. So, what Blizzard decides to do? Buff terran middle game units even more than before. This is something close to the previous potential lowering cost of Hydralisk. As much as I respect Blizzard for their work, I wish they would show some knowledge about the game rather than explaning "this unit is exciting to watch".
What do you think Blizzard should target with their changes to help Terran?
Liquid`Snute: - Improve the Siege Tank overall. - Medivacs could be able to pick up tanks in siege mode? With or without the siege retained. - Infernal Pre-Igniter could also add a short, "burning" anti-regeneration effect to Thor anti-air attacks to further force cautious use of Mutalisk vs 1-5xThor+Bio armies. - Increase MULE repair rate + This one is a bit silly but maybe in the late-game ... Terran could call down Barracks units from space to a Medivac location instead of having to walk them across the map? Haha. Just a thought :D
Property.MorroW: I think the issue with Terran vs Zerg is that their late game with bio is too weak and our tier 3 units take too long time to produce. overall this patch seems more directed towards helping Terran in midgame where i feel as a Terran player myself struggle in the early game and the late game.
Acer_Nerchio: I don't think there have to be many changes but I think we need Legacy of the Void.
ROOT_Iaguz: Making Siege tanks not suck vs Protoss, giving Terran Bio play a bit more power going into lategame but not in a way that just leads to us hardcore turtling into whatever it is.
Cascade_DIMAGA: I think Zerg struggling against PDD nowadays in really late game vs ravens/vikings combo, so i think we need some sort of anti-energy unit or spell for Zerg(you could say you have fungal, but in real games especially when terran just turtle as hell its not working cause of tanks 13 range),so if we will have something like feedback or emp or anything similar to that it would be great.
ROOT_Minigun: I would like to see something to increase their mid-late game potential. Either buff mech, and make it the standard TvP OR/and make it easier for Terran to get their perfect composition. Specific buffs, I am not sure.
EG.Xenocider: Blizzard needs to implement something for Terran to be able to deal with mass mutas, mass banelings, and late game protoss, rather than focusing on our midgame strength.
Liquid`MaNa: Unfortunately I don't have a great idea for the perfect solution for terran. I think a brainstorm with progamers could help with that. Blizzard should definitely look at the Terrans lategame or mech units to make them more playable (at least vs Protoss). I personally think that mech is underused vs Protoss so far, I have troubles playing against it on my own, but I think it would be easily deflectable with good amount of practice, so they should take a look into that.
Honestly, some of the responses really make me ask whether or not the ppl answering read the question
it seems abundantly clear, that in both TvP and TvZ, Terran has troubles in the late game.
Perhaps the ghost is the answer, it fits with the bio play in both matchups? perhaps an hp buff or make snipe usable vs biological again (obviously adjust dmg numbers) or increased range of snipe
What do you think Blizzard should target with their changes to help Terran?
Ideally, you would want to redesign larger parts of the game, but let's wait for LOTV with that. Below is my suggestions for next patch notes;
- PDD nerfed - Siege Tanks damage vs shield increased by 10-15 (ignores hardened shield) - Drilling Claws also reduces unsige duration by 50% (allows tanks to be used more offensively vs zerg - Ghost cost reduced from 200/100 to 150/100. BT reduced from 40 to 35 - When you target fire with Widow Mines, the 1.5 second timer doesn't reset and/or Widow Mine splash AOE increased - Lower duration on Viking transformation (why not... everyone wants to see this one I believe).
Effect of the changes: Should be quite effective at making mech alot better vs toss. Bio will be buffed a bit late game vs toss. Widow Mines will be better which means zergs need to micro more during engagements vs terran, and aggressive usesage of Siege Tanks are buffed as well. With a nerf to PDD; we also get rid of some of the dumb turtlemech games, which will make Avilo sad, but most other people will enjoy it as it means that "actual" mech can be buffed.
On July 06 2014 06:28 Insane wrote: Hmmm...
Dimaga: Terran is too strong right now Everyone else: yeah, Terran could probably use some change to help out.
Thanks for the article
Well to be fair, while I really like the Hellbat change for TvT (and TvP I guess), I think it did a terrible job at adressing the more important issues of the game. Before the patch was launched, I warned against it as I pointed out that terran early game vs Zerg was it's strongest phase in the game already as it had map control and could pressure the zerg well. David Kims balance-logic was that a small buff early game to terran could force the zerg to have less drones going in the midgame --> Later game nerf to zerg. However, buffing the options of the race that already has map control is in the early game a lot more likely to snowball situations than adressing midgame/later game balance issues. Especially since Hellbat openings really aren't solid, but more build-order win based. Over the last week I have done a lot of 2base Hellbat timings and I feel extremely dirty (almost like a protoss player) as there really isn't that much micro/multitasking to it, but it often happen that you get lucky and the zerg player guesses wrong (since he can't tell whether it's banshees or hellbats when Marines deny Overlord scouting). In my opinion Transformation cost should simply have been reduced to 50/50 instead (since the cost indeed was overpriced at 150/150).
So buffing a race that is fine early game to adress a midgame issue is a nono and I am surprised David Kim hasn't learned that yet after years of experience. Instead, it simply always made more sense to (partially) revert Widow Mine nerf as creates more micro-interactions by forcing the zerg to micro more during engagements. A widow Mine buff both buffs terran in the mid and late game vs zerg which is needed becasue right now terran has a very difficult time moving out on the map/pushing creep back/pressuring 4ths/5ths if he didn't do a lot of damage in the early game. A stronger Widow Mine could help with that and then in the later game, better Tanks could help with mass amounts of Banelings
On July 06 2014 06:32 Lunareste wrote: Thanks for the Q and A. I want to hear what Korean pros think, is there any way to reach out to Maru, Bbyong, Flash, Fantasy?
Sort of, but it's really hard and it takes a while. We wanted to get this article out asap, so decided to publish quickly instead.
We'll definitely try to include them in the next one though, assuming blizz goes through another iteration of potential changes soon.
Blizzard should revert some of snipe's nerf to help terrans against zerg's late game. As of TvP, I don't know. Maybe snipe could be a good start there as well to take out some high templars.
Can you tell that the pros are every bit as god damn fucking tired of band aid solutions as the rest of us?
Please do enough work over the course of an expansion to justify its cost the way you did with WC3.
Mech still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Buffing Medivac speed is an asshole thing to do because it further cements that Terran can't play a straight up game without doing crazy aggression. How about you make Terran playable without needing all those Medivac drops, buffed or otherwise? How about you make macro mech work in TvZ without Ravens?
Thanks.
Very sincerely, People
On July 06 2014 06:09 LiquidSnute wrote: - Infernal Pre-Igniter could also add a short, "burning" anti-regeneration effect to Thor anti-air attacks to further force cautious use of Mutalisk vs 1-5xThor+Bio armies.
No. It's way too complicated and not an effective change either. Look at it this way: Why would you make a Zerg-specific fix to the Thor when the Thor is already only really used in that matchup anyway? You can just make a more general buff Thor that strenghtens vs all races. For instance, a small increase in splash, a damage buff, a range buff or a movement speed buff etc. There are tons of more simple fixes here, and I believe Snutes suggestions in general are way way too overcomplicated.
No. It's way too complicated and not an effective change either. Look at it this way: Why would you make a Zerg-specific fix to the Thor when the Thor is already only really used in that matchup anyway? You can just make a more general buff Thor that strenghtens vs all races. For instance, a small increase in splash, a damage buff, a range buff or a movement speed buff etc. There are tons of more simple fixes here, and I believe Snutes suggestions in general are way way too overcomplicated.
The simple fix is buff to 'snipe'. MVP's sniper play was exciting to watch. Well, snipe was a bit borderline at that time but balance is Blizzard's job. Still, some snipe buff is totally justified.
No. It's way too complicated and not an effective change either. Look at it this way: Why would you make a Zerg-specific fix to the Thor when the Thor is already only really used in that matchup anyway? You can just make a more general buff Thor that strenghtens vs all races. For instance, a small increase in splash, a damage buff, a range buff or a movement speed buff etc. There are tons of more simple fixes here, and I believe Snutes suggestions in general are way way too overcomplicated.
The simple fix is buff to 'snipe'. MVP's sniper play was exciting to watch. Well, snipe was a bit borderline at that time but balance is Blizzard's job. Still, some snipe buff is totally justified.
Disagree, it was lame like !@#$%^&* since it had no remicro and Blizzard correctly identified this and nerfed it. Ghost-play back then is comparable to PDD today. Both of them are really dumb and creates a type of gameplay where the terran player is rewarded for turtling.
Chances are you only thought it was exciting becasue it only existed in the meta for a very brief period. Trust me, if this had been part of the meta for over a year everyone would have shitted at Blizzard for being so slow at patching. At one point in early WOL, Fungal Growth was also considered cool, but when it was used more it became apparenty quickly that it was super lame. Unfortunaty Blizzard acted way way too slow with fixing that.
Further, Snipe buff doesn't fix the issue vs mass Banelings at all.
As a terran player, I much rather nerf our lame units/options, like PDD and Hellbat all ins in order to make room for buffs to units that creates more interesting situations (Widow Mines and offensive mech play).
I think Liquid Mana is wrong, lategame protoss tramples terran unless terran gets up the perfect composition and thats insanely hard to get to. Having 15 orbitals doesnt matter when you are just remaxing on the same marine marauder all game while protoss is remaxing on higher tier units.
Oh, so they agree that tanks should be viable in TvP! Siege tank double hit shells on the way And i LOVED Snute suggestion for Thors, the mutas won't die, they just lose regeneration and must stay out of combat! Because if the zerg just loses too many mutas due to a simple mismicro its gg, so it makes sense. Also its not adding more upgrades, its blue flame, something that hellbat terrans want anyway! With this thors are going to properly zone out mutas, and if mutas do engage they will be on fire for some time afterwards. But the same issue from the terran buffs thread discussion, everybody says terran late game TvP must be stronger, but nobody can give a concrete suggestion... I guess siege tank double hit damage is the answer, terran can get mech upgrades for hellbats, mines and vikings too so its not a big issue! I think the extra shield damage and ignore hardened shields ideas sound like *sspulls and change the game more than its acceptable. Tanks are supposed to be weak vs immos, but right now they hard counter tanks too much o_O Also loved that everyone is so honest and unbiased when they give their opinions
On July 06 2014 07:04 BigFoig wrote: I think Liquid Mana is wrong, lategame protoss tramples terran unless terran gets up the perfect composition and thats insanely hard to get to. Having 15 orbitals doesnt matter when you are just remaxing on the same marine marauder all game while protoss is remaxing on higher tier units.
I sometimes watch Mana's stream, and he loses quite a lot against terran at 15-20 min, so it's possibly him.
Nerchio's answer is perfect: Zerg is too strong on creep, too weak without creep vs T and P.
Terran's Lategame problem vs Zerg only relies on the amount of banelings. wm is not allowed to reduce the problem (terrible unit, better remove it in LotV). Makes Tanks stronger!
All due respect to the players interviewed - it would be kind of nice to hear something from the top level pros.
Honestly Nerchio will never in his life say something that would get zerg nerfed or terran buffed so it was pretty useless involving him.
Players saying "the match-up is pretty balanced as a whole" I can't even tell if they are trolling.
Tvz - 8 gas zerg can get as many banelings as you have marines and a big muta cloud - like Snute said if you have half a brain don't engage off creep and you cant lose - transition to Ultra/Infestor if you want to not micro at all.
Tvp - Infinite build order wins for Protoss using proxy + overpowered late game tempest 3/3/3 colo / templar / archon - someone please site me a game where a Terran (not Taeja vs a foreigner please) has won from that situation (4 base Protoss vs 4 base Terran).
A lot of these pros really have no idea how to balance an RTS, some changes too specific and intricate, others are way off of course and biased because they only play 1 race.
Really all that needs to happen guys is this: 1) Revert widow mine in TvZ for bio. This gives Terran a splash damage unit again...that forces Zerg to micro as well instead of just 1A mass banes/mutas. Very simple change, Zergs will complain of course because they don't want to have to micro again.
This change barely affects mech because mech TvZ does not use a lot of mines in the first place (mines are terrible with mech).
2) Buff the siege tank in TvP so that it actually creates positional play and tanks can be cost effective vs warp gate/immortals. Bio does not scale at all into late game versus area of effect. If the tank is returned to it's former glory we could see Terrans actually building units out of the factory in this match-up, whether that is pure mech, or going bio and then incorporating siege tanks later in the game for splash damage....just like Protoss has splash damage.
3) Nerf the Tempest to 6-8 supply. This goes along the same lines of empowring more siege tank play in TvP, and discouraging the use of just simply massing pure tempests/carriers vs mech Terran.
4) Remove/severely nerf the nexus cannon for TvP early game so that Terran has more options, such as cloak banshee builds that are brought back into play. As well as remove/nerf some of Protoss's options like DT shrine, revert oracle speed...they have too many all-ins, over 20 literally that include various forms of pure gateway allins from wings of liberty, and new ones with proxied buildlings/blink. The problem with TvP right now is early game and late game. They coincide.
Terran always gets handicapped in the first 10-12 minutes while being unable to do anything via build order vs the nexus cannon which let's Protoss be greedy, Protoss doesn't have to build 400-600 gas worth of sentries because of the nexus cannon..which is very wrong and tilts the early game towards Protoss too much, which then snowballs into lategame making Protoss lategame hit 1-2 minutes earlier than it did in Wings...which is why you see the issues you do nowadays.
5) Ravens are not an issue - please pros/noobs alike stop trying to circle jerk more Terran nerfs. There is already a counter to mass viking/raven lategame from Zerg called mass vipers. I'm talking about 10+ vipers with infestors for fungals, which is the equivalent of viking/raven but no Zerg does this yet. The answer is already there, it's just not practiced at all. Please, no more Terran nerfing, not to mention the raven is the only lategame unit Terran has right now compared to Z/P tier3.
When I read these itws, I don't wonder anymore why Blizzard doesn't ask to pros. They are so fucking biased this is stupid. Most of them are only acting in their personal interest and don't give a shit about the overall balance and the viewer entertainment. Ask full time caster, they are much less biased already.
On July 06 2014 07:12 DomeGetta wrote: Players saying "the match-up is pretty balanced as a whole" I can't even tell if they are trolling.
A big problem is that many dont think about design problems! I agree too that all matchups are very well balanced, but from design it hurts my brain pretty hard.
buff terran late game units. You almost never see bcs in zvt or thors in pvt and meanwhile you see colossi or ultras in every late game scenerio vs terran.
On July 06 2014 07:24 Vasoline73 wrote: Sad to see no PL/GSL koreans but I understand it's not as easy to get their feedback and that often their opinions are quite short.
we tried, but eventually it didn t work out in time
On July 06 2014 07:13 avilo wrote: A lot of these pros really have no idea how to balance an RTS, some changes too specific and intricate, others are way off of course and biased because they only play 1 race.
Really all that needs to happen guys is this: 1) Revert widow mine in TvZ for bio. This gives Terran a splash damage unit again...that forces Zerg to micro as well instead of just 1A mass banes/mutas. Very simple change, Zergs will complain of course because they don't want to have to micro again.
This change barely affects mech because mech TvZ does not use a lot of mines in the first place (mines are terrible with mech).
2) Buff the siege tank in TvP so that it actually creates positional play and tanks can be cost effective vs warp gate/immortals. Bio does not scale at all into late game versus area of effect. If the tank is returned to it's former glory we could see Terrans actually building units out of the factory in this match-up, whether that is pure mech, or going bio and then incorporating siege tanks later in the game for splash damage....just like Protoss has splash damage.
3) Nerf the Tempest to 6-8 supply. This goes along the same lines of empowring more siege tank play in TvP, and discouraging the use of just simply massing pure tempests/carriers vs mech Terran.
4) Remove/severely nerf the nexus cannon for TvP early game so that Terran has more options, such as cloak banshee builds that are brought back into play. As well as remove/nerf some of Protoss's options like DT shrine, revert oracle speed...they have too many all-ins, over 20 literally that include various forms of pure gateway allins from wings of liberty, and new ones with proxied buildlings/blink. The problem with TvP right now is early game and late game. They coincide.
Terran always gets handicapped in the first 10-12 minutes while being unable to do anything via build order vs the nexus cannon which let's Protoss be greedy, Protoss doesn't have to build 400-600 gas worth of sentries because of the nexus cannon..which is very wrong and tilts the early game towards Protoss too much, which then snowballs into lategame making Protoss lategame hit 1-2 minutes earlier than it did in Wings...which is why you see the issues you do nowadays.
5) Ravens are not an issue - please pros/noobs alike stop trying to circle jerk more Terran nerfs. There is already a counter to mass viking/raven lategame from Zerg called mass vipers. I'm talking about 10+ vipers with infestors for fungals, which is the equivalent of viking/raven but no Zerg does this yet. The answer is already there, it's just not practiced at all. Please, no more Terran nerfing, not to mention the raven is the only lategame unit Terran has right now compared to Z/P tier3.
On July 06 2014 07:24 Vasoline73 wrote: Sad to see no PL/GSL koreans but I understand it's not as easy to get their feedback and that often their opinions are quite short.
we tried, but eventually it didn t work out in time
We are slowly making more and more contacts.
Unfortunately Nathanias who helps us contact EU Koreans is busy with WCS this weekend, so we didn't get in touch with him to allow him to focus on WCS AM.
We don't have many proleague/GSL contacts. Hopefully, we can slowly build more access to them. Also, we will put much more effort into speaking to these pros when hard numbers are released, and we update our article.
No. It's way too complicated and not an effective change either. Look at it this way: Why would you make a Zerg-specific fix to the Thor when the Thor is already only really used in that matchup anyway? You can just make a more general buff Thor that strenghtens vs all races. For instance, a small increase in splash, a damage buff, a range buff or a movement speed buff etc. There are tons of more simple fixes here, and I believe Snutes suggestions in general are way way too overcomplicated.
I should have been a lot clearer. I like how creative the idea is, and as far as band aid solutions go, it would at least steer the game away from the high risk playstyle of Medivacs. I can see how, following the first half of my post, it seems like I think this would fix everything.
On July 06 2014 07:13 avilo wrote: A lot of these pros really have no idea how to balance an RTS, some changes too specific and intricate, others are way off of course and biased because they only play 1 race.
Really all that needs to happen guys is this: 1) Revert widow mine in TvZ for bio. This gives Terran a splash damage unit again...that forces Zerg to micro as well instead of just 1A mass banes/mutas. Very simple change, Zergs will complain of course because they don't want to have to micro again.
This change barely affects mech because mech TvZ does not use a lot of mines in the first place (mines are terrible with mech).
2) Buff the siege tank in TvP so that it actually creates positional play and tanks can be cost effective vs warp gate/immortals. Bio does not scale at all into late game versus area of effect. If the tank is returned to it's former glory we could see Terrans actually building units out of the factory in this match-up, whether that is pure mech, or going bio and then incorporating siege tanks later in the game for splash damage....just like Protoss has splash damage.
3) Nerf the Tempest to 6-8 supply. This goes along the same lines of empowring more siege tank play in TvP, and discouraging the use of just simply massing pure tempests/carriers vs mech Terran.
4) Remove/severely nerf the nexus cannon for TvP early game so that Terran has more options, such as cloak banshee builds that are brought back into play. As well as remove/nerf some of Protoss's options like DT shrine, revert oracle speed...they have too many all-ins, over 20 literally that include various forms of pure gateway allins from wings of liberty, and new ones with proxied buildlings/blink. The problem with TvP right now is early game and late game. They coincide.
Terran always gets handicapped in the first 10-12 minutes while being unable to do anything via build order vs the nexus cannon which let's Protoss be greedy, Protoss doesn't have to build 400-600 gas worth of sentries because of the nexus cannon..which is very wrong and tilts the early game towards Protoss too much, which then snowballs into lategame making Protoss lategame hit 1-2 minutes earlier than it did in Wings...which is why you see the issues you do nowadays.
5) Ravens are not an issue - please pros/noobs alike stop trying to circle jerk more Terran nerfs. There is already a counter to mass viking/raven lategame from Zerg called mass vipers. I'm talking about 10+ vipers with infestors for fungals, which is the equivalent of viking/raven but no Zerg does this yet. The answer is already there, it's just not practiced at all. Please, no more Terran nerfing, not to mention the raven is the only lategame unit Terran has right now compared to Z/P tier3.
Bio is good. You should try it sometime.
I dunno, I think it might be neat to have more than 6 useful units per MU.
I do want Seeker Missile to get slammed with the nerf bat, though. No tier 2.5+ caster should have a spell that's that easy to use AND that potentially devastating.
Re: Avilo's #4, I can't believe this isn't discussed more often, why the hell do Oracles get to attack on the move? Seriously, they're more versatile than Banshees and take less control to use properly? They should have to stop to attack like any other unit.
On July 06 2014 07:44 pure.Wasted wrote: Re: Avilo's #4, I can't believe this isn't discussed more often, why the hell do Oracles get to attack on the move? Seriously, they're more versatile than Banshees and take less control to use properly? They should have to stop to attack like any other unit.
Oracles don't attack on the move, you have to micro them, and they are not easy to use cause they are squishy and have a very low range
I think the extra shield damage and ignore hardened shields ideas sound like *sspulls and change the game more than its acceptable.
Well removal of hardned shield does as it affects Roaches vs Immortals as well + Maurauder vs Immortals, but Tank bonus vs shield buffs tanks vs protoss which could shake up the meta. But isn't that exactly what we want?
Oracles don't attack on the move, you have to micro them, and they are not easy to use cause they are squishy and have a very low range
Oracles have probably the worst control in the game. BW succesed with its air units because all of them were extremely reponsive but none of them were extremely OP when unmicroed. Unforuntatley, Blizzard didn't follow that concept with the Oracle which is the prototype of what not to do.
On July 06 2014 07:44 pure.Wasted wrote: Re: Avilo's #4, I can't believe this isn't discussed more often, why the hell do Oracles get to attack on the move? Seriously, they're more versatile than Banshees and take less control to use properly? They should have to stop to attack like any other unit.
Oracles don't attack on the move, you have to micro them, and they are not easy to use cause they are squishy and have a very low range
Wow, they move so fast in the hands of pros, I legitimately thought they attack on the move. Their skill ceiling is definitely higher than I thought it was.
On July 06 2014 07:13 avilo wrote: A lot of these pros really have no idea how to balance an RTS, some changes too specific and intricate, others are way off of course and biased because they only play 1 race.
Really all that needs to happen guys is this: 1) Revert widow mine in TvZ for bio. This gives Terran a splash damage unit again...that forces Zerg to micro as well instead of just 1A mass banes/mutas. Very simple change, Zergs will complain of course because they don't want to have to micro again.
This change barely affects mech because mech TvZ does not use a lot of mines in the first place (mines are terrible with mech).
2) Buff the siege tank in TvP so that it actually creates positional play and tanks can be cost effective vs warp gate/immortals. Bio does not scale at all into late game versus area of effect. If the tank is returned to it's former glory we could see Terrans actually building units out of the factory in this match-up, whether that is pure mech, or going bio and then incorporating siege tanks later in the game for splash damage....just like Protoss has splash damage.
3) Nerf the Tempest to 6-8 supply. This goes along the same lines of empowring more siege tank play in TvP, and discouraging the use of just simply massing pure tempests/carriers vs mech Terran.
4) Remove/severely nerf the nexus cannon for TvP early game so that Terran has more options, such as cloak banshee builds that are brought back into play. As well as remove/nerf some of Protoss's options like DT shrine, revert oracle speed...they have too many all-ins, over 20 literally that include various forms of pure gateway allins from wings of liberty, and new ones with proxied buildlings/blink. The problem with TvP right now is early game and late game. They coincide.
Terran always gets handicapped in the first 10-12 minutes while being unable to do anything via build order vs the nexus cannon which let's Protoss be greedy, Protoss doesn't have to build 400-600 gas worth of sentries because of the nexus cannon..which is very wrong and tilts the early game towards Protoss too much, which then snowballs into lategame making Protoss lategame hit 1-2 minutes earlier than it did in Wings...which is why you see the issues you do nowadays.
5) Ravens are not an issue - please pros/noobs alike stop trying to circle jerk more Terran nerfs. There is already a counter to mass viking/raven lategame from Zerg called mass vipers. I'm talking about 10+ vipers with infestors for fungals, which is the equivalent of viking/raven but no Zerg does this yet. The answer is already there, it's just not practiced at all. Please, no more Terran nerfing, not to mention the raven is the only lategame unit Terran has right now compared to Z/P tier3.
Bio is good. You should try it sometime.
In the current metagame, bio is absolutely terrible if you play a really good defensive Zerg that knows to accumulate mass mutas and then mass banelings (30+ banes). Mech is a stronger lategame army than bio, and since a Zerg is going to basically force you to lategame...they just need to revert the mine nerf so bio has splash damage involved again.
On July 06 2014 07:44 pure.Wasted wrote: Re: Avilo's #4, I can't believe this isn't discussed more often, why the hell do Oracles get to attack on the move? Seriously, they're more versatile than Banshees and take less control to use properly? They should have to stop to attack like any other unit.
Oracles don't attack on the move, you have to micro them, and they are not easy to use cause they are squishy and have a very low range
5) Ravens are not an issue - please pros/noobs alike stop trying to circle jerk more Terran nerfs. There is already a counter to mass viking/raven lategame from Zerg called mass vipers. I'm talking about 10+ vipers with infestors for fungals, which is the equivalent of viking/raven but no Zerg does this yet. The answer is already there, it's just not practiced at all. Please, no more Terran nerfing, not to mention the raven is the only lategame unit Terran has right now compared to Z/P tier3.
i wonder what are u going to say when they revome the raven^^ it's not about nerf, it's just a pourly design unit. In broodwar, u could go for science vessel cause starport was not busy producing medivacs. Now i feel like as it has been already said terran cant mix enought unit. I'd love to see 1-1-1 that would not be allin.
a more easier access to pdd could take care of 3) and 4) 1) and 2) are good ways to try some work on terran aoe but i dont feel that taking a step this far back would be good. +5 dmg will be enought but i'll mainly add more bonus dmg with upgrades(+2mobile/+5splash) for the wm, i have no clue how much splash dmg radius should be up.
I completely agree with most of the players. Terran midgame is already strong enough. i wpould like more tech options and lategame-transitions for terran
What do you think Blizzard should target with their changes to help Terran?
Ideally, you would want to redesign larger parts of the game, but let's wait for LOTV with that. Below is my suggestions for next patch notes;
- PDD nerfed - Siege Tanks damage vs shield increased by 10-15 (ignores hardened shield) - Drilling Claws also reduces unsige duration by 50% (allows tanks to be used more offensively vs zerg - Ghost cost reduced from 200/100 to 150/100. BT reduced from 40 to 35 - When you target fire with Widow Mines, the 1.5 second timer doesn't reset and/or Widow Mine splash AOE increased - Lower duration on Viking transformation (why not... everyone wants to see this one I believe).
Effect of the changes: Should be quite effective at making mech alot better vs toss. Bio will be buffed a bit late game vs toss. Widow Mines will be better which means zergs need to micro more during engagements vs terran, and aggressive usesage of Siege Tanks are buffed as well. With a nerf to PDD; we also get rid of some of the dumb turtlemech games, which will make Avilo sad, but most other people will enjoy it as it means that "actual" mech can be buffed.
Dimaga: Terran is too strong right now Everyone else: yeah, Terran could probably use some change to help out.
Thanks for the article
Well to be fair, while I really like the Hellbat change for TvT (and TvP I guess), I think it did a terrible job at adressing the more important issues of the game. Before the patch was launched, I warned against it as I pointed out that terran early game vs Zerg was it's strongest phase in the game already as it had map control and could pressure the zerg well. David Kims balance-logic was that a small buff early game to terran could force the zerg to have less drones going in the midgame --> Later game nerf to zerg. However, buffing the options of the race that already has map control is in the early game a lot more likely to snowball situations than adressing midgame/later game balance issues. Especially since Hellbat openings really aren't solid, but more build-order win based. Over the last week I have done a lot of 2base Hellbat timings and I feel extremely dirty (almost like a protoss player) as there really isn't that much micro/multitasking to it, but it often happen that you get lucky and the zerg player guesses wrong (since he can't tell whether it's banshees or hellbats when Marines deny Overlord scouting). In my opinion Transformation cost should simply have been reduced to 50/50 instead (since the cost indeed was overpriced at 150/150).
So buffing a race that is fine early game to adress a midgame issue is a nono and I am surprised David Kim hasn't learned that yet after years of experience. Instead, it simply always made more sense to (partially) revert Widow Mine nerf as creates more micro-interactions by forcing the zerg to micro more during engagements. A widow Mine buff both buffs terran in the mid and late game vs zerg which is needed becasue right now terran has a very difficult time moving out on the map/pushing creep back/pressuring 4ths/5ths if he didn't do a lot of damage in the early game. A stronger Widow Mine could help with that and then in the later game, better Tanks could help with mass amounts of Banelings
Are you one of those people that see one TvZ mech game and suddenly say "nerf PDD"? Yes PDD is powerful, but you are moving in the wrong direction. The Raven is the ONLY viable late game unit Terran has against Swarm Hosts. If you nerf Raven then you have to nerf Swarm Hosts. Any nerf to the PDD would cause games to devolve into little mech play and increase 4M play. And I also bet you forgot about mass Tempest in your quick-to-judge assesment. There is no answer to mass Tempest without the PDD. It is already almost unbeatable with PDD against Tempest/HT.
On July 06 2014 07:13 avilo wrote: A lot of these pros really have no idea how to balance an RTS, some changes too specific and intricate, others are way off of course and biased because they only play 1 race.
Really all that needs to happen guys is this: 1) Revert widow mine in TvZ for bio. This gives Terran a splash damage unit again...that forces Zerg to micro as well instead of just 1A mass banes/mutas. Very simple change, Zergs will complain of course because they don't want to have to micro again.
This change barely affects mech because mech TvZ does not use a lot of mines in the first place (mines are terrible with mech).
2) Buff the siege tank in TvP so that it actually creates positional play and tanks can be cost effective vs warp gate/immortals. Bio does not scale at all into late game versus area of effect. If the tank is returned to it's former glory we could see Terrans actually building units out of the factory in this match-up, whether that is pure mech, or going bio and then incorporating siege tanks later in the game for splash damage....just like Protoss has splash damage.
3) Nerf the Tempest to 6-8 supply. This goes along the same lines of empowring more siege tank play in TvP, and discouraging the use of just simply massing pure tempests/carriers vs mech Terran.
4) Remove/severely nerf the nexus cannon for TvP early game so that Terran has more options, such as cloak banshee builds that are brought back into play. As well as remove/nerf some of Protoss's options like DT shrine, revert oracle speed...they have too many all-ins, over 20 literally that include various forms of pure gateway allins from wings of liberty, and new ones with proxied buildlings/blink. The problem with TvP right now is early game and late game. They coincide.
Terran always gets handicapped in the first 10-12 minutes while being unable to do anything via build order vs the nexus cannon which let's Protoss be greedy, Protoss doesn't have to build 400-600 gas worth of sentries because of the nexus cannon..which is very wrong and tilts the early game towards Protoss too much, which then snowballs into lategame making Protoss lategame hit 1-2 minutes earlier than it did in Wings...which is why you see the issues you do nowadays.
5) Ravens are not an issue - please pros/noobs alike stop trying to circle jerk more Terran nerfs. There is already a counter to mass viking/raven lategame from Zerg called mass vipers. I'm talking about 10+ vipers with infestors for fungals, which is the equivalent of viking/raven but no Zerg does this yet. The answer is already there, it's just not practiced at all. Please, no more Terran nerfing, not to mention the raven is the only lategame unit Terran has right now compared to Z/P tier3.
Bio is good. You should try it sometime.
In the current metagame, bio is absolutely terrible if you play a really good defensive Zerg that knows to accumulate mass mutas and then mass banelings (30+ banes). Mech is a stronger lategame army than bio, and since a Zerg is going to basically force you to lategame...they just need to revert the mine nerf so bio has splash damage involved again.
See, at least that sentence was somewhat close to positive. Better than saying that pros have no clue what they are doing and are biased towards their race before posting 4 ridiculous suggestions (the mine one is valid though so I'll give you that) that are all Terran biased.
Well done Avilo, you are obviously the voice of reason when it come to balance.
I liked Xeno's answers. I think that finding a solution for mass banes and mass muta is the correct answer. I also like Qxc's suggestion to make creep recede faster. This will allow a more long lasting effect of properly pushing creep back. I don't know how tanks will affect TvZ, but I really hope for no mech buffs in TvT.
While Korean opinions are perhaps more important, reading these foreigners' answers is more interesting. Koreans seem to mostly act like Nerchio here, whine, and never admit their advantages, and don't seem to put much effort in their answers (which is perhaps a consequence of translation). Look at the effort Snute and Xenocider put into their answers. Super interesting!
On July 06 2014 08:13 WonDeRSC wrote: I liked Xeno's answers. I think that finding a solution for mass banes and mass muta is the correct answer. I also like Qxc's suggestion to make creep recede faster. This will allow a more long lasting effect of properly pushing creep back. I don't know how tanks will affect TvZ, but I really hope for no mech buffs in TvT.
I remember there was a Blizzard test map to play around with creep tumor energy cost from the queen to help in reducing creep spread. I think it was actually at the end of WoL with the horrible state of Terran (go figure we are in the same place again). I don't know why they didn't implement it.
On July 06 2014 08:13 WonDeRSC wrote: I liked Xeno's answers. I think that finding a solution for mass banes and mass muta is the correct answer. I also like Qxc's suggestion to make creep recede faster. This will allow a more long lasting effect of properly pushing creep back. I don't know how tanks will affect TvZ, but I really hope for no mech buffs in TvT.
I remember there was a Blizzard test map to play around with creep tumor energy cost from the queen to help in reducing creep spread. I think it was actually at the end of WoL with the horrible state of Terran (go figure we are in the same place again). I don't know why they didn't implement it.
Mvp won sLivko, Vortix and Nerchio so all was fine.
On July 06 2014 08:14 diverzee wrote: While Korean opinions are perhaps more important, reading these foreigners' answers is more interesting. Koreans seem to mostly act like Nerchio here, whine, and never admit their advantages, and don't seem to put much effort in their answers (which is perhaps a consequence of translation). Look at the effort Snute and Xenocider put into their answers. Super interesting!
Every time I see Nerchio polled in one of these, it is like pulling teeth to acknowledge any problems. He deflects the question(s) and focuses on Terran's strong points instead of the real issues (late game). I think Terran could be forever eliminated from Code S RO32 and Nerchio would have a reason why there shouldn't be any balance changes. Mana is right up there too, somehow hinting that Protoss is underpowered in the late game b/c of mules?!! What? I guess I can't blame them...they want to win tournaments even if one of the races is considered "weaker" than the rest.
I actually agree with nerchio, we need another game, at least a new expansion, blizzard fucked that up waaay too much. when they try to fix it it will only get worse. i was playing wol the other day and i have to say WOL was a much better game than HOTS ever was.
On July 06 2014 08:13 WonDeRSC wrote: I liked Xeno's answers. I think that finding a solution for mass banes and mass muta is the correct answer. I also like Qxc's suggestion to make creep recede faster. This will allow a more long lasting effect of properly pushing creep back. I don't know how tanks will affect TvZ, but I really hope for no mech buffs in TvT.
I remember there was a Blizzard test map to play around with creep tumor energy cost from the queen to help in reducing creep spread. I think it was actually at the end of WoL with the horrible state of Terran (go figure we are in the same place again). I don't know why they didn't implement it.
Mvp won sLivko, Vortix and Nerchio so all was fine.
Lol, that makes sense. One Terran to balance the entire game around. Why do I feel Taeja and Maru are being used as the scapegoats for opposing races to say, "See they beat a P and Z. It can be done!" Ya, too bad you only need 10,000 apm to do it.
I think Blizzard has time and time again shown that either they have no idea what they are doing or they are so arrogant that they don't listen to the pro's opinion.
On July 06 2014 07:49 Hider wrote: I think the extra shield damage and ignore hardened shields ideas sound like *sspulls and change the game more than its acceptable.
Well removal of hardned shield does as it affects Roaches vs Immortals as well + Maurauder vs Immortals, but Tank bonus vs shield buffs tanks vs protoss which could shake up the meta. But isn't that exactly what we want?
I mentioned double hit for tanks, because it can just do the trick and its a cleaner change. Tanks are already decent vs gate stuff and at zoning out HT, while immortals are supposed to be good against them. Biomech vs protoss is only weak because immortals melt tanks and thors, making tanks do twice the damage vs their shields might be just enough. I also think the pros gave some interesting insights, and are much more neutral that most people on this thread Double factory play might become an interesting agressive option for the midgame.
Why not bring the lockdown ability back from brood war? Wouldnt it only affect tvt and tvp and make a tank buff possible to implement without making it all mech vs mech in tvt? Doesn't necessarily have to be a ghost ability again either?
I feel like David Kim mostly if not only listens to koreans, so I have limited hope that he will listen to Snute for instance, because he had some decent suggestions.
I feel the muta ball is a bit too strong ZvT once it goes above 20 mutas. Maybe remove or slow down regen? Also QXCs creep suggestion is a good one aswell, have it spread faster but also recede faster.
On July 06 2014 08:28 ilikeredheads wrote: I think Blizzard has time and time again shown that either they have no idea what they are doing or they are so arrogant that they don't listen to the pro's opinion.
It's not about their ability to balance it, I just don't think they care. It's complete apathy. They are throwing darts on a board. They have taken a laissez-faire approach to the game where they are relying on the community to tell them if a balance change is required. Once they see a nerf/buff is required they put all the possible Terran upgrades into a hat, put their blindfold on and pick one. I'm surprised Building Armor upgrade hasn't been chosen yet.
I've come to this realization after the latest map pool: All of them were created by the community. I don't know if that is a good or bad thing, but it is clear Blizzard has absolutely no interest in improving or introducing new maps. Perhaps the same mentality stands for the balance of the game.
On July 06 2014 08:24 Undead1993 wrote: I actually agree with nerchio, we need another game, at least a new expansion, blizzard fucked that up waaay too much. when they try to fix it it will only get worse. i was playing wol the other day and i have to say WOL was a much better game than HOTS ever was.
really? PvZ was atricous, and so was TvZ. only thing really which was better is TvT other mirrors sucked, and TvP is roughly equal
Why not give Ghosts some kind of Maelstrom projectile? Kind of like how they use EMP vs shields/energy, they could use a psi-jammer "maelstrom" type spell to slow down zerg unit movement speed by, like, 50% for a couple seconds?
That'd help vs mutas, it'd help vs mass banelings, and it'd be usable in all match-ups if it effected all "biological" units? Or if it just effected protoss/zerg?
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Dear Blizzard,
Can you tell that the pros are every bit as god damn fucking tired of band aid solutions as the rest of us?
Please do enough work over the course of an expansion to justify its cost the way you did with WC3.
Mech still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Buffing Medivac speed is an asshole thing to do because it further cements that Terran can't play a straight up game without doing crazy aggression. How about you make Terran playable without needing all those Medivac drops, buffed or otherwise? How about you make macro mech work in TvZ without Ravens?
On July 06 2014 06:09 LiquidSnute wrote: - Infernal Pre-Igniter could also add a short, "burning" anti-regeneration effect to Thor anti-air attacks to further force cautious use of Mutalisk vs 1-5xThor+Bio armies.
Whoa.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
What is this and I like it.
If you like that Terran would never be able to complain about Warp Prisms ever again :D
Cool ideas from Snute though, he's one of them thinkers.
Their opinions about the state of balance are a bit divergent, but at least they all agree than Blizzard's buffs are bad, that's the conclusion Blizzard should draw out of this interview.
Terran is already very strong in midgame and weak in lategame for TvZ, so what is Blizzard's solution? Make the midgame even stronger, and don't address lategame at all! /facepalm
In all honesty, I think Blizzard does this on purpose. I've noticed it a few other times when they suggest changes. They first start out with completely over the top ridiculous ideas that almost everyone in the community agrees are complete bullshit, and then they revise those changes to something more reasonable. That way when people see the "revised" changes compared to what the original idea was, they're much more likely to accept the changes.
On July 06 2014 07:04 BigFoig wrote: I think Liquid Mana is wrong, lategame protoss tramples terran unless terran gets up the perfect composition and thats insanely hard to get to. Having 15 orbitals doesnt matter when you are just remaxing on the same marine marauder all game while protoss is remaxing on higher tier units.
I sometimes watch Mana's stream, and he loses quite a lot against terran at 15-20 min, so it's possibly him.
Gimme the name of the Terran that has 15+ orbitals at the 20 min mark .
Seriously Terran need a better way to deal with mass muta bane in the late game, whether it is through ghosts or thors, or both. I also feel that turrets upgrades should be better. I tend to agree with qxc as the creep spreading and receding faster would be a great idea. It would put the better player ahead, and Terran wouldn't be super dead if he let the creep spread too much
And I feel like Mana is suuuuuuuper biased about PvT late game, or the only Terran he's playing is Taeja and he has lost all sense of balance.
On July 06 2014 08:24 Undead1993 wrote: I actually agree with nerchio, we need another game, at least a new expansion, blizzard fucked that up waaay too much. when they try to fix it it will only get worse. i was playing wol the other day and i have to say WOL was a much better game than HOTS ever was.
really? PvZ was atricous, and so was TvZ. only thing really which was better is TvT other mirrors sucked, and TvP is roughly equal
I agree with Undead1993, all HotS units except Viper are terrible units. I want WoL with HotS fungal, hydra speed, P with HotS Voidrays and T with speedivacs.
On July 06 2014 07:04 BigFoig wrote: I think Liquid Mana is wrong, lategame protoss tramples terran unless terran gets up the perfect composition and thats insanely hard to get to. Having 15 orbitals doesnt matter when you are just remaxing on the same marine marauder all game while protoss is remaxing on higher tier units.
I sometimes watch Mana's stream, and he loses quite a lot against terran at 15-20 min, so it's possibly him.
Gimme the name of the Terran that has 15+ orbitals at the 20 min mark .
The fun fact is that the best player of all those interviewed (snute) is the one who gave the most accurate and neutral suggestions, even though he is a zerg and purposed terrans buff. Maybe blizzard should ask the koreans and the top foreigner level instead of the ones here. It's just my opinion of course .
On July 06 2014 08:24 Undead1993 wrote: I actually agree with nerchio, we need another game, at least a new expansion, blizzard fucked that up waaay too much. when they try to fix it it will only get worse. i was playing wol the other day and i have to say WOL was a much better game than HOTS ever was.
really? PvZ was atricous, and so was TvZ. only thing really which was better is TvT other mirrors sucked, and TvP is roughly equal
I agree with Undead1993, all HotS units except Viper are terrible units. I want WoL with HotS fungal, hydra speed, P with HotS Voidrays and T with speedivacs.
I like Snute's suggestion to improve an aspect of terran's production. The one he gave was pretty awesome, but probably op. Perhaps an upgrade in the ebay that requires armory and ghost academy that decreases production time for all barracks units by 5 seconds. Make this upgrade take a very long time, so that terran can't abuse it during mid game (which I think would already be hard because of the armory and ghost academy requirements).
Come on guys Snute's suggestion about barracks is basically a Terran tech upgrade of WoL's single player... Imo fighting Protoss warp-in mechanics (which are... questionable already) with Terran's own warp-in mechanics isn't the way to go about it.
1 - First of all - MorroW got away with a Troll like a boss
Property.MorroW: I think there is a problem in TvZ. Property.MorroW: i think TvP is pretty ok but scv pulls are very strong on some of the maps. the new ladder map pool it will be easier for Protoss to defend.
LOL
2 - Gained a lot of respect for qxc (always regarded him heavily Terran biased, though being one these days isn't as "dangerous" as it used to be in the GomTvT era of WoL) - he said a very VERY good solution for the PO of MSC - both buffing it (in terms of being able to use more Timewarp) as well as nerfing it in the same time, (for the Terran being able to drill upon).. What's even better - that one
coL_qxc: Scouting is very hard in TvP. If you're a bit unlucky with your scans or scouting or the Protoss is a bit trickier/skilled at denying scouting than most it can feel impossible to prepare correctly. I don't know if it's a problem as much as a design flaw, but I think photon overcharge needs a slight rework. Right now it feels excessively strong and prevents a huge amount of early aggression from Terran. I think if photon overcharge cost 50 mana, lasted 40 seconds and had a 60 second cooldown it could be a move in the right direction. This creates more windows of vulnerability while also allowing the Protoss more opportunities to use time warp as a single spell use wouldn't be as expensive which would hopefully create more dynamic play. I don't like end game vs protoss, but that might just be me. Warp gate has always been incredibly frustrating - especially warp prism play. 10 zealot & 3 dt warp-in in my main feels so dumb. Often this match-up feels incredibly easy to lose and nearly impossible to win if it goes to the late game as storm prevents major counter attacks while losing a single engagement as Terran often seems to end the game completely. I don't know how or if this needs to be fixed, but that's my observation.
ALSO THIS ONE - nails it IMO -
Terran's weakness is more due to inflexibility in changing tech and lack of late game tech options
..
That's they way it really feels - Terran can't "transition" well enough rather than use well enough what they got
3 - Like A LOT the opinion below (check my posts - been saying Tempests need to be nerfed, surprisingly at least someone good at the game agrees on that one, yaaaay)
EG.Xenocider: TvP right now is basically just drill into the Protoss so that you don't get into the late game. The threat of Tempests and more importantly templar make TvP ridiculously hard in the late game. I talked to bbyong and he said that TvP lategame is hard mostly because of feedback which is devastating to packs of ghosts. It's hard to say whether midgame is favored in either way because in the current meta game it's just a stalemate between early blink stalkers and drops. In the early game Protoss more openings than Terran but it's not really that important if the Terran plays well.
4 - MaNa - well - a bit Protoss biased (the lack of variety of gameplay after the WMine buff - though he's right, sounded like "whining" at an era when Protoss is considered widely superior).. But that slap in the face of DK was actually the real eye-opener, respect for that one sir
Yeah - this answer right here, lol -->
Liquid`MaNa: Both of them are complete bullshit in my opinion. I don't understand the thought proccess from Blizzard in that regard. Terran is the strongest race in the midgame and surviving that part as the opposite race is very hard. Therefor, they don't need any new solution in middle game. So, what Blizzard decides to do? Buff terran middle game units even more than before. This is something close to the previous potential lowering cost of Hydralisk. As much as I respect Blizzard for their work, I wish they would show some knowledge about the game rather than explaning "this unit is exciting to watch".
5 - Dima, lol.. That's a very good observation - PDD DOES block the matchup A LOT, BUT - the question you were asked is how to help TERRAN, not how to help ZvT, lol
Cascade_DIMAGA: I think Zerg struggling against PDD nowadays in really late game vs ravens/vikings combo, so i think we need some sort of anti-energy unit or spell for Zerg(you could say you have fungal, but in real games especially when terran just turtle as hell its not working cause of tanks 13 range),so if we will have something like feedback or emp or anything similar to that it would be great.
And 6 - Snute's looking a pretty hardcore "community biased", lol..
What do you think Blizzard should target with their changes to help Terran?
Liquid`Snute: - Improve the Siege Tank overall. - Medivacs could be able to pick up tanks in siege mode? With or without the siege retained.
(Though must say that feels very odd, would rather give a +1 range and +5 more damage vs Armored of the Siege-Tank, and see how it goes, lol)
================================================================ OVERALL = IT'S GREAT to hear that Pros don't "differ" much than us "mere mortals" in having opinion on the matter.. TBH, helps a lot, and thanks a lot
Thanks to the TL staff for making this one possible.. Feels like we're not "off the mark" as a community in general TBH :D
On July 06 2014 08:24 Undead1993 wrote: I actually agree with nerchio, we need another game, at least a new expansion, blizzard fucked that up waaay too much. when they try to fix it it will only get worse. i was playing wol the other day and i have to say WOL was a much better game than HOTS ever was.
really? PvZ was atricous, and so was TvZ. only thing really which was better is TvT other mirrors sucked, and TvP is roughly equal
I agree with Undead1993, all HotS units except Viper are terrible units. I want WoL with HotS fungal, hydra speed, P with HotS Voidrays and T with speedivacs.
The saddest part is that the old games get abbandoned due to bad periods that happened before that "final shape" that would've worked well if it was given a bit more time though..
WoL for example with the 2 Infestor nerfs got rid of the BLord-Infestor (although still strong - wasn't OP anymore, as opposed to the 6 month total Zerg domination era just before) - after the 2 latest Infestor nerfs, game got like 80% better.. BUT - everyone stopped playing WoL, and transitioned to HotS (understandable though)..
NOW - same story yet again - just when we're about to see (hopefully) proper Tank buffs and good matchup "variety tech ratio" for each of the races - then in that moment LotV will come out, lol
On July 06 2014 08:24 Undead1993 wrote: I actually agree with nerchio, we need another game, at least a new expansion, blizzard fucked that up waaay too much. when they try to fix it it will only get worse. i was playing wol the other day and i have to say WOL was a much better game than HOTS ever was.
really? PvZ was atricous, and so was TvZ. only thing really which was better is TvT other mirrors sucked, and TvP is roughly equal
I agree with Undead1993, all HotS units except Viper are terrible units. I want WoL with HotS fungal, hydra speed, P with HotS Voidrays and T with speedivacs.
The saddest part is that the old games get abbandoned due to bad periods whilest they're probably in the best shape possible in which we'd liked to have them gotten..
WoL for example with the 2 Infestor nerfs got rid of the BLord-Infestor (although still strong - wasn't OP anymore) after the 2 latest Infestor nerfs, but everyone stopped and transitioned to HotS..
NOW - same story yet again - just when we're about to see (hopefully) proper Tank buffs and good matchup "variety tech ratio" for each of the races - then in that moment LotV will come out, lol
It looked promising for ZvP since ITs were such a huge part of it and the "no upgrades" was just a huge blow to the infestor only lategames. But TvZ was still in shambles. ITs weren't such a big deal, and 8range fungal only meant that you might have lost an infestor once in a while to some stimmed bio, but didn't change that you would just hit the Terran right during his viking build up with BL/Corruptor and then stomp down the vikings with infestors.
Siege tanks are one of the most skill intensive units to use, and so a buff to tanks could only improve the game, as only the good players will properly utilize tanks. Some people may not see it that way because tanks in an actual fight require no micro, but tanks require insane map awareness to utilize properly. The terran needs to know exactly where the other player's army is, because unsieged tanks are useless. And he needs to know if the opponent is trying to go around his tank line too. And the other player needs to know where the terran army is, because if he runs headfirst into a tank line he SHOULD lose.
But that's the problem with tanks. Keyword is SHOULD. But in SC2, terrans require tanks to be sieged in a fight just to have a fighting chance. In theory, if you have a good tank count and they are sieged, you will not break that line with a pure ground army. In BW, I do not recall anyone breaking a good sieged tank line with a pure ground army; even something as simple as putting HTs or reavers in shuttles would greatly help a toss beat a tank line.
I'm not sure how to make tanks better in tvz, since the big problem with tanks being useless is the muta HP regen making it too easy for zergs to snipe tanks (also the fact that the viper just totally shits on tanks too, but zergs don't often go vipers because terrans don't make tanks anyway). But the way to fix tanks in tvp is to give them a bonus damage to shields. The fact that protosses can break a big tank line with 0 air units is just bad; they have too many units that tanks can never kill. I don't know exactly how much the bonus should be, but it would go a long way towards making immortals not be such a hard counter to tanks, or chargelots requiring 5 shots to kill.
I think the extra shield damage and ignore hardened shields ideas sound like *sspulls and change the game more than its acceptable.
Well removal of hardned shield does as it affects Roaches vs Immortals as well + Maurauder vs Immortals, but Tank bonus vs shield buffs tanks vs protoss which could shake up the meta. But isn't that exactly what we want?
Oracles don't attack on the move, you have to micro them, and they are not easy to use cause they are squishy and have a very low range
Oracles have probably the worst control in the game. BW succesed with its air units because all of them were extremely reponsive but none of them were extremely OP when unmicroed. Unforuntatley, Blizzard didn't follow that concept with the Oracle which is the prototype of what not to do.
are you guys serious? the immortal was meant to deal with seige tanks from BW, thats why they have hardened shield, other than immortals (or maybe so many zealots, it is hard to go out without already losing units to tanks, just buff tanks, dont nerf immortals, they were meant to counter tanks
On July 06 2014 11:10 IMPrime wrote: Siege tanks are one of the most skill intensive units to use, and so a buff to tanks could only improve the game, as only the good players will properly utilize tanks. Some people may not see it that way because tanks in an actual fight require no micro, but tanks require insane map awareness to utilize properly. The terran needs to know exactly where the other player's army is, because unsieged tanks are useless. And he needs to know if the opponent is trying to go around his tank line too. And the other player needs to know where the terran army is, because if he runs headfirst into a tank line he SHOULD lose.
But that's the problem with tanks. Keyword is SHOULD. But in SC2, terrans require tanks to be sieged in a fight just to have a fighting chance. In theory, if you have a good tank count and they are sieged, you will not break that line with a pure ground army. In BW, I do not recall anyone breaking a good sieged tank line with a pure ground army; even something as simple as putting HTs or reavers in shuttles would greatly help a toss beat a tank line.
I'm not sure how to make tanks better in tvz, since the big problem with tanks being useless is the muta HP regen making it too easy for zergs to snipe tanks (also the fact that the viper just totally shits on tanks too, but zergs don't often go vipers because terrans don't make tanks anyway). But the way to fix tanks in tvp is to give them a bonus damage to shields. The fact that protosses can break a big tank line with 0 air units is just bad; they have too many units that tanks can never kill. I don't know exactly how much the bonus should be, but it would go a long way towards making immortals not be such a hard counter to tanks, or chargelots requiring 5 shots to kill.
I think they should have a 2hit attack with around half damage (slightly highter), doubling their damage vs immos shield, but not making them much better vs other toss units. That can make biomech work, you can make mines or hellbats to deal with zealots. Protoss should not be forced to make voids vs tanks because marines hard counter them. But TvP late game army control with biomech is going to be a nightmare for terran (altough a little bit harder for protoss too). For TvZ the Thor suggestion from Snute might work, the imbalance is not big after hellbat patch. It looks like you agree with me that the issue is not tanks, its mutas.
On July 06 2014 07:06 Faust852 wrote: Lol some pro are really fucking biased lol.
And Downfall's article that you jack off to isn't biased?
Some pros are way more biased when asked of their opinion regarding balance than that article will ever be construed to be, I'm looking at you "BL-Infestor" Rain.
No. It's way too complicated and not an effective change either. Look at it this way: Why would you make a Zerg-specific fix to the Thor when the Thor is already only really used in that matchup anyway? You can just make a more general buff Thor that strenghtens vs all races. For instance, a small increase in splash, a damage buff, a range buff or a movement speed buff etc. There are tons of more simple fixes here, and I believe Snutes suggestions in general are way way too overcomplicated.
Why would it be limited to Zerg anyway? Protoss regenerate too just shields instead of health. It could actually be a step in a mech TvP direction as it would help mech deal with immortals if their shields regenerated slowly. Also, complicated?
Infernal Preigniter Adds ____ attack to thor that when hit, opponents regenerate at Y health/second.
Where Y is a number smaller than the current health/second ratio increase
On July 06 2014 07:13 avilo wrote: A lot of these pros really have no idea how to balance an RTS, some changes too specific and intricate, others are way off of course and biased because they only play 1 race.
Really all that needs to happen guys is this: 1) Revert widow mine in TvZ for bio. This gives Terran a splash damage unit again...that forces Zerg to micro as well instead of just 1A mass banes/mutas. Very simple change, Zergs will complain of course because they don't want to have to micro again.
This change barely affects mech because mech TvZ does not use a lot of mines in the first place (mines are terrible with mech).
2) Buff the siege tank in TvP so that it actually creates positional play and tanks can be cost effective vs warp gate/immortals. Bio does not scale at all into late game versus area of effect. If the tank is returned to it's former glory we could see Terrans actually building units out of the factory in this match-up, whether that is pure mech, or going bio and then incorporating siege tanks later in the game for splash damage....just like Protoss has splash damage.
3) Nerf the Tempest to 6-8 supply. This goes along the same lines of empowring more siege tank play in TvP, and discouraging the use of just simply massing pure tempests/carriers vs mech Terran.
4) Remove/severely nerf the nexus cannon for TvP early game so that Terran has more options, such as cloak banshee builds that are brought back into play. As well as remove/nerf some of Protoss's options like DT shrine, revert oracle speed...they have too many all-ins, over 20 literally that include various forms of pure gateway allins from wings of liberty, and new ones with proxied buildlings/blink. The problem with TvP right now is early game and late game. They coincide.
Terran always gets handicapped in the first 10-12 minutes while being unable to do anything via build order vs the nexus cannon which let's Protoss be greedy, Protoss doesn't have to build 400-600 gas worth of sentries because of the nexus cannon..which is very wrong and tilts the early game towards Protoss too much, which then snowballs into lategame making Protoss lategame hit 1-2 minutes earlier than it did in Wings...which is why you see the issues you do nowadays.
5) Ravens are not an issue - please pros/noobs alike stop trying to circle jerk more Terran nerfs. There is already a counter to mass viking/raven lategame from Zerg called mass vipers. I'm talking about 10+ vipers with infestors for fungals, which is the equivalent of viking/raven but no Zerg does this yet. The answer is already there, it's just not practiced at all. Please, no more Terran nerfing, not to mention the raven is the only lategame unit Terran has right now compared to Z/P tier3.
Edited: Look, don't trash pro players for expressing an opinion that is biased when you too are heavily biased, and then proceed to immediately follow up that criticism by doing exactly what you criticized. If you wonder why it's sometimes hard to take you seriously, it's things like this.
The most annoying part about this is that T lategame issues have been talked about for literally years but Blizzard keeps targetting early/mid game stuff.
On July 06 2014 13:13 oxxo wrote: The most annoying part about this is that T lategame issues have been talked about for literally years but Blizzard keeps targetting early/mid game stuff.
maybe blizz doesn't really have any clear solution to terran lategame without making it OP if they buff it.
On July 06 2014 13:13 oxxo wrote: The most annoying part about this is that T lategame issues have been talked about for literally years but Blizzard keeps targetting early/mid game stuff.
maybe blizz doesn't really have any clear solution to terran lategame without making it OP if they buff it.
I am definitely not the biggest watcher of HotS but having watched a lot of games recently... I agree that endgame compositions need to be more interesting.
Before even bringing balance in, the end-game is fucking boring as it's often the mid-game with more units. Make ghosts (nukes and EMP that was over-nerfed) more useful, BCs more useful (or slightly faster/more affordable to build to incite people to actually make them --- right now it's like a lose button to make them; in 99% of games that I have ever seen them made the T was way ahead and lost when he made BCs because of how bad their value is).
I recently watched the top40 games of 2013, GSL and a few other randoms and the biggest disappointment is how many units get left out of EVERY matchup. Even the other races need to be looked at for this (zerg is probably the one in the best spot but I noticed broodlords and infestors are rarely seen). And as always I wish Nydus were more prominent if Blizzard buffed them a bit. It's the most interesting concept for Zerg IMO. Protoss is in a decent place (carriers still pretty much a joke unit it seems) in terms of unit usage from what I can tell.
Since the balance already needs to be fixed for end-game, it's a great opportunity to make different units more useful, especially various exciting end-game units. I personally hope they do this for LoV (and add 1-2 unit per race of course) at the very least. I can't believe several years in that end-game units are still so under-used =/
Again I don't play this game. But as a watcher I wish the balance was shifted to let players use more interested units in the late game.
Buff Terran late game army please. Revert ghost nerf. Collosus templar can destroy mmm in few seconds literally, while Ghost EMP only takes out their shield. Note that they dont die, which means few more seconds of collosus laser will destroy the remaining army. Combine that with extremely beefy chargelot. It's a no brainer Toss wins 9 out of 10 engagements.
Battlecruiser, buff speed movement, longer shooting range, lower cost/build time, maybe AOE on either normal attack or yamato canon.
It seems that most pros do want different changes than the one suggested. I highly doubt that Blizzard will listen given they seem to want a quick fix unitl LoV.
I know koreans barely bother to reply when you guys ask them for opinions on balance, but due to the huge difference in opinion between them and foreigners, I don't think asking only foreigners will give anyone a very clear picture.
The changes are dumb. Widow mines need more damage not aoe range, medivacs buff encourage more gimmicky(aggressive) play not macro games where the Terran obviously lacks big time. Units that require buffs are ghosts, thors, battlecruisers, tanks...Bio play should be viable only in the beginning and midgame after that Terran should require to incorporate tier 3 units in their army.
On July 06 2014 15:21 Shinespark wrote: I know koreans barely bother to reply when you guys ask them for opinions on balance, but due to the huge difference in opinion between them and foreigners, I don't think asking only foreigners will give anyone a very clear picture.
Again, we did this on fairly short notice and couldn't get in touch with our Korean contacts. Either way, a lot of the opinions, especially those expressed by Xenocider, Snute, and qxc are all very insightful and make a lot of sense. And while there are differing opinions on the power of Protoss and Zerg, it seems that everyone universally agrees that the changes Blizzard is proposing miss the mark at actually helping and only target an extraordinarily powerful aspect of Terran.
That said, I think, after the feedback Blizzard has received on these changes, they will start to look at more late-game oriented solutions to try and allow Terran to smooth out in the lategame instead of having to approach it with a huge lead from the mid game. If they make a change or propose another series of changes, you can bet that we'll be on top of it, and we'll probably include Koreans this time.
On July 06 2014 15:48 p14c wrote: The changes are dumb. Widow mines need more damage not aoe range, medivacs buff encourage more gimmicky(aggressive) play not macro games where the Terran obviously lacks big time. Units that require buffs are ghosts, thors, battlecruisers, tanks...Bio play should be viable only in the beginning and midgame after that Terran should require to incorporate tier 3 units in their army.
You do realize that mines one-shot stalkers, right?
On July 06 2014 15:21 Shinespark wrote: I know koreans barely bother to reply when you guys ask them for opinions on balance, but due to the huge difference in opinion between them and foreigners, I don't think asking only foreigners will give anyone a very clear picture.
Again, we did this on fairly short notice and couldn't get in touch with our Korean contacts. Either way, a lot of the opinions, especially those expressed by Xenocider, Snute, and qxc are all very insightful and make a lot of sense. And while there are differing opinions on the power of Protoss and Zerg, it seems that everyone universally agrees that the changes Blizzard is proposing miss the mark at actually helping and only target an extraordinarily powerful aspect of Terran.
That said, I think, after the feedback Blizzard has received on these changes, they will start to look at more late-game oriented solutions to try and allow Terran to smooth out in the lategame instead of having to approach it with a huge lead from the mid game. If they make a change or propose another series of changes, you can bet that we'll be on top of it, and we'll probably include Koreans this time.
Thanks a lot for doing this, guys. This promotes the sort of transparent discussion that is really good for SC's health in the longterm.
On July 06 2014 13:58 404AlphaSquad wrote: lol @ Dimaga. "What do you think Blizzard should target with their changes to help Terran?" DIMAGA: Buff zerg.
^^
EXACTLY - English is not his native you know
BUT - he's right.. Mech is bad and OP because of PDD.. PDD and SHOST should BOTH get nerfed, or at least be changed to not create stalemates any longer..
SO - having that in mind:
TvZ/ZvT
1 - PDD nerf - PDD no longer blocks ALL incomming missile damage, but only 75% (more like - it won't "filter" 1/4 of the incomming missile DPS).. And PDD requires 100 energy now
2 - PDD buff - PDDs no longer require energy to shoot, instead they guard the area without need of stacks (except timed life, speaking of Which - that Durable Materials upg. might be completely axed off.)
3 - Locust buff - Locusts have a 3 seconds longer lifetime by default
4 - Locust nerf - remove the EL upgrade from the game
5 - Locust "tweak" - halve Locust damage - instead of 12 starting and 15 after max upgrades - make it have 6x2 = 12 (9x2 = 18 after max upgrades).. The gain in this is that Units that are highly armored - like the Ultralisk or Thor for ex. - they'll tank a lot more Locust shots than before
6 - If it "proves" that Terran has advantage over Zerg - buff Abduct range (been thinking this one for a longer time TBH - make Viper more SHost - i.e. - the one unit that goes in and engages first, and make SHost more Roach 2.0 with the EL upgrade removal )
TvP/PvT
1 - nerf Tempest - +50 vs Massive Air = WHY ??, why 85 damage total ?, couldn't they still be like 60 (i.e. 35 + 25) or sth and still work ?, like - pretty sure they would.. The gain is - only one more shot required to kill a BroodLord or a Colossus, but 3 more shots to kill a BC = Purrfect :D.. AND - the basic damage of Tempest can still be lowered to like 30 instead of 35.. - A bit "stylistic" that makes Vikings last at least a bit longer (should be no much problem cause Storm still is the primary DPS factor of Protoss even in those comps)
2 - maybe implement qxc's suggested change of PO - I like it A LOT TBH.. qxc = da man
3 - if those not enough - experiment with the Siege-Tank range being 14 instead of 13 - will at least add some "clock" on Protosses defending the Nexus with just a simple PO TBH.. Though they might prove strong - it's a - The one we ASK FOR, and b - (Terran would need such a buff IF say - IF there was that PDD nerf I talked above about)
===================================================================================== BUT yah - you can clearly see how we end up being MOST RADICAL.. (And I'm even not one of those - bring back the Warhound, bring back OP Ghost. hurr durr.. )
And that's kinda the problem the game might be now.. It's in a good spot, BUT - the further changes to continue on are quite radical ATM.. Can't think of something more "slight" to address some/most of the issues TBH.. In other words - the game ATM is "STUCK"
Also - notice how that Zerg/anti-Zerg change is "stylistic" as opposed to balancing out (though nerfing PDD and buffing mech in other ways, even with reworking a bit of how Zerg would work is a LOT pleasable), whilest in TvP it's the other way round - same style of gameplay, only another "tech route" for Terran..
Both Tempest nerfs and Tank buff should ("on paper") make it a lot better, and perhaps even make mech viable as opposed to not working or OP (via PDDs after those being nerfed).. But yah - Tempests indeed make like 7-8 units or so - 1 of which Zerg (Broodlord), 3 of which Protoss (Colossus, Carrier, Mothership), and about 4-5 Terran units or so completely "disappear" and result in us never seeing them at all
Not surprised about the pro comments since its a Terran buff Blizzard is suggesting. The terrans defends their race and says its too weak and hoping for a buff while the zergs actually says its a quite balanced matchup and would rather have the buff suggestions trashed.
Imo i see P as the strongest race. I understand that Blizzard wants to improve T´s win chances vs P but while doing that with such "wide" suggestions they will make Z much weaker vs T. Instead Blizzard should probably look at strong P openings vs T and make them slightly weaker.
Making ghosts (Buff Snipe) or tanks (2 Supply) good would be nice. Or I guess we can let the players struggle and figure out solutions but that will take a couple years and I don't think this game has that sort of longevity. :\
I don't know why the pro's opinion matters. Time has shown that eventhough they are better players, they aren't better than anyone at balancing the game and anticipating how a map will play out (except when they always saay "huuuur duur this map sucks XD"). Add to that, that they are all biased as fuck.
On July 06 2014 17:26 nonlamer wrote: What do you think Blizzard should target with their changes to help Terran?
Dimaga "i think we need some sort of anti-energy unit or spell for Zerg".
What????, seem like he answer to wrong question.
He's referring to mass Ravens and how he finds it 'impossible' to beat. What Dimaga doesn't realise is that Mech cannot fight against swarmhosts without losses. Ravens at the moment is a crude solution to the Terran late game TvZ problem. Nerfing PDDs right now would make late game mech useless against swarmhost/viper compositions.
I think the extra shield damage and ignore hardened shields ideas sound like *sspulls and change the game more than its acceptable.
Well removal of hardned shield does as it affects Roaches vs Immortals as well + Maurauder vs Immortals, but Tank bonus vs shield buffs tanks vs protoss which could shake up the meta. But isn't that exactly what we want?
Oracles don't attack on the move, you have to micro them, and they are not easy to use cause they are squishy and have a very low range
Oracles have probably the worst control in the game. BW succesed with its air units because all of them were extremely reponsive but none of them were extremely OP when unmicroed. Unforuntatley, Blizzard didn't follow that concept with the Oracle which is the prototype of what not to do.
are you guys serious? the immortal was meant to deal with seige tanks from BW, thats why they have hardened shield, other than immortals (or maybe so many zealots, it is hard to go out without already losing units to tanks, just buff tanks, dont nerf immortals, they were meant to counter tanks
Lol. They don't need Hardened Shield to "counter" Siege Tanks. In BW, Dragoons were cost-ineffective against Siege Tanks in a straight up battle. Even when you remove hardened shield from Siege Tanks, Immortals are actually still cost-effective.
It's just an absolutely terrbile design which means that mech cannot be aggressive in midgame vs protoss and needs to uber turtle. Bascially your logic could be applied to these changes as well;
- Siege Tank range increased to 20 - Siege Tank splash increased by 100%. - Damage changed to 100 vs light but reduced to 10 vs armored.
Now, obviously basic logic would come to the conclusion that Siege Tanks were just really OP vs Blings for instance, but then we would have people like you arguing that "are you series guys, Siege Tanks was meant to kill Blings"....
I think the following change to Ravens could be interesting in multiple regards:
Raven maximum energy from 200 to 100 (starting energy stays at 50/75 respectively) PDD cost from 125 to 100. Seeker Missile cost from 100 to 75. Auto Turret cost to 50 to 25.
What does this do in terms of buffing? Ravens spawn with a seeker missile. This makes transitioning into them much, much smoother. Ravens cannot be feedbacked to death anymore. This is in my opinion the biggest reason why Ravens are not seen in TvP. All their useful spells require a lot of energy, which means Ravens basically always die to feedbacks - which is pretty hardcore, losing a 100/200 unit to 50energy. (feedbacking them would obviously still be good against them, removing all the energy and dealing up to 100damage) Autoturret harass becomes much more viable, because 25 energy are regenerated much faster. Might require a small lifetime nerf to autoturrets to prevent lategame turrets fields. To have a PDD, the raven only needs to acquire 25energy. Another thing that you are often missing when going for Ravens, but you can't even PDD for quite some time.
What does this do in terms of nerfing? Maxed Raven armies don't have the ridiculous amounts of seeker missiles anymore that force you to dodge them so often that the opponent has already regenerated them. Maxed Raven armies have a harder time PDDing bigger areas.
I think this could actually be quite helpful for bio (and mech too) in both matchups to transition into ravens, while the raven turtle becomes a little weaker.
On July 06 2014 15:21 Shinespark wrote: I know koreans barely bother to reply when you guys ask them for opinions on balance, but due to the huge difference in opinion between them and foreigners, I don't think asking only foreigners will give anyone a very clear picture.
Again, we did this on fairly short notice and couldn't get in touch with our Korean contacts. Either way, a lot of the opinions, especially those expressed by Xenocider, Snute, and qxc are all very insightful and make a lot of sense. And while there are differing opinions on the power of Protoss and Zerg, it seems that everyone universally agrees that the changes Blizzard is proposing miss the mark at actually helping and only target an extraordinarily powerful aspect of Terran.
That said, I think, after the feedback Blizzard has received on these changes, they will start to look at more late-game oriented solutions to try and allow Terran to smooth out in the lategame instead of having to approach it with a huge lead from the mid game. If they make a change or propose another series of changes, you can bet that we'll be on top of it, and we'll probably include Koreans this time.
Do you really think that Blizzard will react to the feedback?
The changes proposed are "not addressing the issue" according to almost everyones statements That means that either the balance tem have an insight that the community does not share or that they are not understanding the problem.
Are you one of those people that see one TvZ mech game and suddenly say "nerf PDD"? Yes PDD is powerful, but you are moving in the wrong direction. The Raven is the ONLY viable late game unit Terran has against Swarm Hosts.
Are you one of the guys that only watch Avilo's stream? That guy sits on 3 bases for 25-30 Minutes as he doesn't know how to secure bases. Everyone that happens after that is a very poor demonstration of balance.
In general, protoss air is such a big mess, and perhaps Tempest does need a supply increase. But it's very easy to confuse different types of problems with each other. As Siege Tanks are so weak in Sc2 it automatically makes protoss air better as well since you cannot devote as much supply into air as you would ideally want to. Faster transformation time of Vikings also means that the penalty for overmaking Vikings is less.
Swarm Hosts can (perhaps) be dealt with through faster Unsiege/faster transformation time of Vikings. If Muta/Swarm Hosts are still too strong, then I think there is room for a small Thor buff.
I would be careful about giving mech too many buffs in one patch, that can quickly escalate. Make a couple of buffs to more aggressive-based mech and then reevaluate whether it's enough. PDD, however, definitely needs a nerf if anyone wants to see more aggresisve usage of mech (over turtle mech). Because mech cannot be buffed in any way while not making turtlemech even more retarded.
I mentioned double hit for tanks, because it can just do the trick and its a cleaner change.
No, it's a very unclean change as your basically making a completely artifical rule that only applies to the Siege Tank + I question whether it's enough. All units in the game shoot twice if they have two attack animations per attack. The Siege Tank, however only has one.
And while I agree that Siege Tanks aren't terrible against other protoss units, I do think there is a bit of room to buff it. + Damage vs shield is much more in a line with what Blizzard previously has done and is thus are more likely change they would implement (though I think lower attack cooldown is even more likely).
Why would it be limited to Zerg anyway? Protoss regenerate too just shields instead of health. It could actually be a step in a mech TvP direction as it would help mech deal with immortals if their shields regenerated slowly. Also, complicated?
Wait, are you really implying that the thing mech needs vs protoss is to remove shield from regenerating? I cannot see why Blizzard should spend time in the editor developing that ability when they can spend 2 Minutes to increase the movement speed of the Unit or increase the splash size.
Yes, it's complicated because your adding a new concept to the game that didn't exist previously. One should only add new concepts to the game if they add new types of micro/strategies. If Snute could elaborate on how this would create more interesting interactions relative to a small splsash buff or a movement speed buff to the Thor, I would be quite interested in hearing it.
On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote: Some of those opinions are pretty funny. Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game? The joke is on us.
On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote: Some of those opinions are pretty funny. Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game? The joke is on us.
This game has literally no depth. Only players can it bit a bit deeper with skills but it is very very little because of many hard counter units (not much room for skills at figths). Not sure why everyone expect incredible insight.
Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill.
On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote: Some of those opinions are pretty funny. Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game? The joke is on us.
This game has literally no depth. Only players can it bit a bit deeper with skills but it is very very little because of many hard counter units (not much room for skills at figths). Not sure why everyone expect incredible insight.
Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill.
On July 06 2014 17:49 Big J wrote: I think the following change to Ravens could be interesting in multiple regards:
Raven maximum energy from 200 to 100 (starting energy stays at 50/75 respectively) PDD cost from 125 to 100. Seeker Missile cost from 100 to 75. Auto Turret cost to 50 to 25.
What does this do in terms of buffing? Ravens spawn with a seeker missile. This makes transitioning into them much, much smoother. Ravens cannot be feedbacked to death anymore. This is in my opinion the biggest reason why Ravens are not seen in TvP. All their useful spells require a lot of energy, which means Ravens basically always die to feedbacks - which is pretty hardcore, losing a 100/200 unit to 50energy. (feedbacking them would obviously still be good against them, removing all the energy and dealing up to 100damage) Autoturret harass becomes much more viable, because 25 energy are regenerated much faster. Might require a small lifetime nerf to autoturrets to prevent lategame turrets fields. To have a PDD, the raven only needs to acquire 25energy. Another thing that you are often missing when going for Ravens, but you can't even PDD for quite some time.
What does this do in terms of nerfing? Maxed Raven armies don't have the ridiculous amounts of seeker missiles anymore that force you to dodge them so often that the opponent has already regenerated them. Maxed Raven armies have a harder time PDDing bigger areas.
I think this could actually be quite helpful for bio (and mech too) in both matchups to transition into ravens, while the raven turtle becomes a little weaker.
This is a big buff for mech turtle. You have to keep in mind one thing, PDDs and auto turrets lasts very long (3-4min). So if you lower the mana cost for these spells it means the terran player will have more pdds and auto turrets on the battlefield in the same time. In most situations pdd is a lot better than seeker missile, especially for transitionning into a bigger army. Yes the terran player can hope for a lucky strike and send 8 seeker missile in a big pack of roach/hydra army but if the zerg dodge these missiles you lost a lot of mana for nothing. You prefer to put 8 PDDs, each of them will block at least 20 attacks from hydralisk, which means you block 20*15*8 = 2400 damage The difference between PDDs and seeker missile is rougly the same as between mines and tanks : you have one reliable option (tank and PDD) and one gamble option with possible very high outcome (mines and seeker missile).
On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote: Some of those opinions are pretty funny. Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game? The joke is on us.
This game has literally no depth. Only players can it bit a bit deeper with skills but it is very very little because of many hard counter units (not much room for skills at figths). Not sure why everyone expect incredible insight.
Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill.
Fuck off with the game bashing.
You should know that hard counter units dont give much room for micro. It's avoid more deep! Its not bashing, it is just true.
On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote: Some of those opinions are pretty funny. Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game? The joke is on us.
Define funny.
Largely contradicting one another. Maybe it's just cheery-picking by the author but you are playing the same game.
On July 06 2014 07:06 Faust852 wrote: Lol some pro are really fucking biased lol.
And Downfall's article that you jack off to isn't biased?
Because a 100k words article with over 40 references is more biased than Dimaga's "Terran is too strong" and MaNa's "Terran is imbalance in lategame TvP" ? For real ? At least statistics tend to agree with DwF, not with MaNa.
Yeh I agree here. I acutally found one way to nerf PDD, but only against a zerg player that micro's well (I tested it works in the editor), but a multiple amount of changes needs to be implemented;
- PDD now costs 20 energy to block a shot up from 10. - PDD energy regeneration increased significantly (like 4-5 times higher). - PDD HP reduced to 10. - PDD model size increased, - PDD activaiton radius reduced from 8 to 7.
With all of these changes, the enemy player is actually rewarded for target firing PDD's as the PDD otherwise will regenerate super quickly. If he can do that really well, the PDD is a lot less effective and will only block 6-8 shots compared to the 10+ shots it currently blocks.
If on the other hand, the zerg just amoves, PDD could easily end up blocking like 15 shots. Atm. there is no actual reward for target firing and it's not really practical either for two reasons;
1) PDD model size is very small, hard to find during larger battles. Thus a model sice increase is mandatory if we want to encourage more target-firing. 2) With an activation radius of 8, the PDD can be placed behind the terran army which makes it difficult to target fire it. 7 radius here is, however, a much better number.
I think it is funny, when Protoss/Zerg complain about M.U.L.E. and supply issues.
P: Warpgate = unlimited amount of instant on spot reinforcement of tanky cannon fodder units like zealots or even damage dealing tanking Archon. Okay lategame 70 probes, 130 army supply + 20 Warpgates (3000minerals 10 extra CC for mule/scan on 5base =4000 mins) = 10 insta archons. 20 Charge zealot (= 3000 HP ) With chronoboost you can effectivly double the number of warpgates for a short time.
+ It is both strong in defense and Attack !
Z: Inject poof 100 Larvae. Fight. Select all larvae, rebuild immediatly according to terran composition, or SWARM out 100 Lings
That's game design, you can not see Mule/scan without the counterparts.
I think the tipping Point of TvZ was a game on "Whirlwind". It was 2 Koreans playing, but i don't recall who it was. Might be Innovation vs Jeadong/Life or some sort.. Hellbat was already nerfed, Mine still good.
The Zerg outmacroed Terran, stopped the 4M parade push at his 4th base in a 15min breathtaking fight on razor's edge. Zerg had stopped the Rax-Rally-Point play style, by macro harder, transition smoother into ultras.
Then Blizzard thougth, well wouldn't it be cool if mediocre players could do the same, and nerfed the widowmine into oblivion. From there, when the players had already fixed the game, blizzard destroyed the "balance" just to tipp into Zerg favor. 4M Rallye over creep ? Well no way Josè. Its completely reversed. Zerg needs to make enough Ling Bling and even Roach to defend the Creep, until mutas show up. And then Muta Ling Bling can basicly ignore windowmines completly. They even get killed by the Baneling's splash that was killed by another WM. Zergs got to a point where it is to be spot on with the macro and creepspread, while microing hard vs. WM, and then WM was basicly removed. Reversing the Odds. Terran pushes to your 3rd? Well Ling Bling it, and get a 4th and 5th. Terran lost an army once? Well another base it is.
Mech-Go0dyGames
Well if the Swarm can not be stopped by 4M, you make the big M. MECH it is. Enough tanks to kill most Locusts, a PDD to minimize damage. Most Zergs STILL go Swarmhost and MUTA against it. If terran rebuilds Turrets fast enough, well some HMS will hit home and then it's over, zergs tears streaming. Is it easy for either side? NO ! is it imbalanced? NO ! What can zerg do? Guerilla tactics ! Not 40 Mutas against 10+ Thors ! Use infestor against air, Use Viper to BC tanks, Use Broodlords ! Use nydus, Drop , Burrow, Neural parasite,use your arsenal, dont go SH muta , ling bling ultra on auto pilot. Zerg can get complete map vison, fast resupply, unlimited spine and spore. And still answer to terran is 50 mutas. DERP.
How long do Mecha-Zerg games go? Well mostly 60+ minutes. How satisfying are thy? Well HMS hitting 50 mutas while thor splash? Rrrrrrrrrrrrr damn sexy.
Is Terran even hurtiung? Well From most recent WCS Premier AM : T is fine, look Bomber, Polt, Taeja and Heart made it to ro8 #Terranisfinedontbuff. Well if you look closely...it was not Terran winning the groups, it was koreans over non koreans. And in Ro8 two of four Terrans go out 0-3, one wins by 2-3 and violet got mauled by heart 3-0. Okay game is still balanced if you not play Hyun and still playing like Bomber.
I wish Blizzard wuold be really really careful about the patches. Like not medevac and mine (because it will result in purely medevac+ mine attacks in the testing phase, wich therefore gives no hint of the viability)
Also any Buff on Terran will result in a very unstable TvT situation wich really is the most fun (for terrans) when it is Marine Tank vs Marine tank strategy.
On July 06 2014 17:49 Big J wrote: I think the following change to Ravens could be interesting in multiple regards:
Raven maximum energy from 200 to 100 (starting energy stays at 50/75 respectively) PDD cost from 125 to 100. Seeker Missile cost from 100 to 75. Auto Turret cost to 50 to 25.
What does this do in terms of buffing? Ravens spawn with a seeker missile. This makes transitioning into them much, much smoother. Ravens cannot be feedbacked to death anymore. This is in my opinion the biggest reason why Ravens are not seen in TvP. All their useful spells require a lot of energy, which means Ravens basically always die to feedbacks - which is pretty hardcore, losing a 100/200 unit to 50energy. (feedbacking them would obviously still be good against them, removing all the energy and dealing up to 100damage) Autoturret harass becomes much more viable, because 25 energy are regenerated much faster. Might require a small lifetime nerf to autoturrets to prevent lategame turrets fields. To have a PDD, the raven only needs to acquire 25energy. Another thing that you are often missing when going for Ravens, but you can't even PDD for quite some time.
What does this do in terms of nerfing? Maxed Raven armies don't have the ridiculous amounts of seeker missiles anymore that force you to dodge them so often that the opponent has already regenerated them. Maxed Raven armies have a harder time PDDing bigger areas.
I think this could actually be quite helpful for bio (and mech too) in both matchups to transition into ravens, while the raven turtle becomes a little weaker.
This is a big buff for mech turtle. You have to keep in mind one thing, PDDs and auto turrets lasts very long (3-4min). So if you lower the mana cost for these spells it means the terran player will have more pdds and auto turrets on the battlefield in the same time. In most situations pdd is a lot better than seeker missile, especially for transitionning into a bigger army. Yes the terran player can hope for a lucky strike and send 8 seeker missile in a big pack of roach/hydra army but if the zerg dodge these missiles you lost a lot of mana for nothing. You prefer to put 8 PDDs, each of them will block at least 20 attacks from hydralisk, which means you block 20*15*8 = 2400 damage The difference between PDDs and seeker missile is rougly the same as between mines and tanks : you have one reliable option (tank and PDD) and one gamble option with possible very high outcome (mines and seeker missile).
yes, the duration is a little bit headache inducing with that change.
On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote: Some of those opinions are pretty funny. Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game? The joke is on us.
This game has literally no depth. Only players can it bit a bit deeper with skills but it is very very little because of many hard counter units (not much room for skills at figths). Not sure why everyone expect incredible insight.
Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill.
Fuck off with the game bashing.
You should know that hard counter units dont give much room for micro. It's avoid more deep! Its not bashing, it is just true.
that's just phrases connected to each other what you write.
Marines hardcounter 90% of the units in the game, but are said to be very fun. Banelings vs marines is one of the most fun things in the game imo, and banelings are very hard counters to marines. The reason it is fun is that you can diminish damage to the marines while dealing with the hardcounters. Immortal drops are one of the coolest things a Protoss can do, and it's a fucking awesome hardcounter to anything armored (including buildings). ...
All of that shit about hardcounters is completely made up. Hardcounters are amazing if well designed and the single biggest reason why we micro units. Focus fire? If no unit in the game is a harder counter than another, why focus fire? Everything is a homgenous blob anyways. Splitting? Yes, to diminish damage taken by hardcounters. Kiting? Yes, so that your ranged stuff doesn't get hardcountered and hardcounters lower ranged units. Spell usage? Yes, to hardcounter something.
Countering (and hardcountering) is a the core of strategical play in RTS games. If you couldnt counter something, there is nothing you can do to influence the game. But it's funny, people keep on throwing around these stupid phrases as if there has ever been an RTS without hardcounters... Go ahead and build a valkyre in Broodwar. Build a firebat and see those zerglings melt. Build a siege tank and rofl-stomp those pesky marines. Or you know, for once play a different RTS like a CnC game and see what a machine gun type weapon does to a tank there. Spoiler alert, that tank is going to destroy your whole base before going down to your infantry.
Anyways, I really shouldn't be answering to anything that uses the word depth in a 2sentence post (lol, that's some deep insight, harharhar). And that is obviously game bashing.
Marines hardcounter 90% of the units in the game, but are said to be very fun. Banelings vs marines is one of the most fun things in the game imo, and banelings are very hard counters to marines. The reason it is fun is that you can diminish damage to the marines while dealing with the hardcounters.
That's not a hardcounter. Below is the definition;
A strategy that utterly dominates another strategy, leaving no question of the outcome.
Compare to soft counter. In a soft counter, the strategy being countered can still be victorious through skill or luck. There is no chance of this when a hard counter is used.
Marine vs Banelings is dependent on micro. Even Marine vs the majority of the 90% of the units which you claim it hardcountered depends on micro.
Hardcounter examples are however, Siege Tanks vs Immortals as there is nothing the Siege Tank player can do to become more cost-effective vs Immortals. The Immortals when amoved simply always beat Siege Tanks, which creates a terrible interaction.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Airtoss still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Airtoss still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
On July 06 2014 18:46 Hider wrote: With all of these changes, the enemy player is actually rewarded for target firing PDD's as the PDD otherwise will regenerate super quickly. If he can do that really well, the PDD is a lot less effective and will only block 6-8 shots compared to the 10+ shots it currently blocks.
I think you assume that there are one or very few pdd on the battlefield. During a big fight there are at least 20 pdds to protect the terran army, the zerg player can't destroy all these pdds : -It takes too much time -too much overkill (50 corruptor shooting one PDD for example) -you can't click on a precise air unit because the models of the units stack on the same area
On July 06 2014 18:46 Hider wrote: With all of these changes, the enemy player is actually rewarded for target firing PDD's as the PDD otherwise will regenerate super quickly. If he can do that really well, the PDD is a lot less effective and will only block 6-8 shots compared to the 10+ shots it currently blocks.
I think you assume that there are one or very few pdd on the battlefield. During a big fight there are at least 20 pdds to protect the terran army, the zerg player can't destroy all these pdds : -It takes too much time -too much overkill (50 corruptor shooting one PDD for example) -you can't click on a precise air unit because the models of the units stack on the same area
Note that if you set up X PDD's with these changes, then the X PDD's runs out of energy roughly twice as fast as they currently do. So when all of the PDD's are out of energy, you have two choices;
1) Target fire them individally --> which is quite practical with these changes as the model size is larger making it much easier to see them and click on them.
2) Amove, which is bad becasue then over time the PDD will regenerate very much quicker in energy and block a lot more shots in the future.
The scaling here is actually irrelevant in the determination of what the best type of micro is. As long as you target fire, this will be a nerf to PDD, regardless of the amount of PDD's placed. For instance if terran place up 20 PDD's that would perhaps take 30 seconds to get rid of the energy with X amount of corrupters in Sc2 currently. With these changes it might only take 20 seconds as long as you micro well. Still really good, but a nerf nontheless.
Also note that no terran sets up 20 PDD's at once, but puts them up gradaully as the zerg otherwise would be able to escape.
Marines hardcounter 90% of the units in the game, but are said to be very fun. Banelings vs marines is one of the most fun things in the game imo, and banelings are very hard counters to marines. The reason it is fun is that you can diminish damage to the marines while dealing with the hardcounters.
That's not a hardcounter. Below is the definition;
A strategy that utterly dominates another strategy, leaving no question of the outcome.
Compare to soft counter. In a soft counter, the strategy being countered can still be victorious through skill or luck. There is no chance of this when a hard counter is used.
Marine vs Banelings is dependent on micro. Even Marine vs the majority of the 90% of the units which you claim it hardcountered depends on micro.
Hardcounter examples are however, Siege Tanks vs Immortals as there is nothing the Siege Tank player can do to become more cost-effective vs Immortals. The Immortals when amoved simply always beat Siege Tanks, which creates a terrible interaction.
90% is a exaggeration, but given the amount of air units in the game which nearly all fall to marines, the amount of units countered by it is pretty high.
I'm more familiar with these kind of describtions for hard/soft counter.
A hard counter describes the situation where one unit is completely dominant over another. A soft counter describes the situation where one unit is effective versus another unit, but it is not necessarily a landslide.
"Hard counter" means a strategy or unit has no chance of victory at all against another strategy or unit. A soft counter is something that has an advantage against something else, but the advantage isn't insurmountable.
"Counter" is a strategical term to describe "what-beats-what", and it doesn't make any difference strategically, how (e.g. kiting) the counter-interaction is achieved.
Yes, immortal vs siege tank is kind of terrible in terms of interaction. But given that tanks simply don't have any movement capabilities once sieged, this is not just a plain immortal problem. That's a problem anytime you are playing tanks against something that can overrun them. The problem with the tank vs immortal is not that the immortal is a hard counter, but that the tank in return is not a hardcounter to anything vital of Protoss and all the ways to protect your tanks from immortals with Mech are very weak strategies.
Edit: The the banelings when amoved simply always beat Marines. should not have made the cut and was kind of a "word to word" raection to your last sentence in which you also just describe an amove situation. But obviously, tanks just cant do more when sieged, so it was a stupid response.
the banelings when amoved simply always beat Marines.
Yes, but that's why Marines can micro which creates uncertainty about the outcome, that makes it a soft counter - not a hardcounter.
The problem with the tank vs immortal is not that the immortal is a hard counter, but that the tank in return is not a hardcounter to anything vital of Protoss and all the ways to protect your tanks from immortals with Mech are very weak strategies
If we look at the micro of Immortals vs Siege Tanks, it's simply retarded. Immortal has really high damage which should encourage target firing. But how on earth can it be target fired? Hellions suck vs it. Hellbats too low range. Tanks only deal 10 damage - it's quite clear that blizzard didn't spend a lot of times thinking of interactions here. There wouldn't really be an issue with Immortals being cost-effective against Siege Tanks if there was still interesting micro possibilites for the terran player, but there simply isn't and that's I believe when hardcounters are at it's worst.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Airtoss still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
The problem with the tank vs immortal is not that the immortal is a hard counter, but that the tank in return is not a hardcounter to anything vital of Protoss and all the ways to protect your tanks from immortals with Mech are very weak strategies
If we look at the micro of Immortals vs Siege Tanks, it's simply retarded. Immortal has really high damage which should encourage target firing. But how on earth can it be target fired? Hellions suck vs it. Hellbats too low range. Tanks only deal 10 damage - it's quite clear that blizzard didn't spend a lot of times thinking of interactions here. There wouldn't really be an issue with Immortals being cost-effective against Siege Tanks if there was still interesting micro possibilites for the terran player, but there simply isn't and that's I believe when hardcounters are at it's worst.
thing is, that has little to do with hardcounters. take roach vs roach, it's perfectly balanced, not counter relation. Same problem, there is little you can do in terms of control. same goes for marines vs marines. But then you introduce a counter unit to be added to the marine army (e.g. hellions early or tanks), and suddenly the combats become much more interesting, since suddenly you get all those sniping micro and all the disengaging from tanks etc.
I think we are basically talking about the same thing that is the problem. Just imo, that problem has little to do with "hardcounters" but with a lack of interesting interaction, or in the PvT case a lack of anything that you can reallly go for to punish immortals, which in return may reduce the immortal count that Ps can go for vs Mech, which then means you may actually be able to counter immortals with tanks by sheer numbers, unless he does something interesting (target fire, dropping into the tanks) with them.
I am reading this thread, and all these people commenting on how WoL was a better game, Jesus people really have short memory...
Depends from what angle you are looking, but HotS is just a lot better game, where a lot more units are used and there are a lot more strategies overall. Maybe there are match-ups that are worse(TvT for example) but majority of them are better.
thing is, that has little to do with hardcounters. take roach vs roach, it's perfectly balanced, not counter relation. Same problem, there is little you can do in terms of control. same goes for marines vs marines. But then you introduce a counter unit to be added to the marine army (e.g. hellions early or tanks), and suddenly the combats become much more interesting, since suddenly you get all those sniping micro and all the disengaging from tanks etc.
Yeh I don't disagree here. I think in general the whole concept of "hardcounters" is extremely overrated, rather I just nitpicked by saying Marine vs Banelings certainly isn't an hardcounter.
We should definitely instead focus on what creates fun microinteractions instead of whether unit x hardcounters unit Y.
I am reading this thread, and all these people commenting on how WoL was a better game, Jesus people really have short memory...
Depends from what angle you are looking, but HotS is just a lot better game, where a lot more units are used and there are a lot more strategies overall. Maybe there are match-ups that are worse(TvT for example) but majority of them are better.
I think it was the part about WOL being discovered/figured out and all the hype about WOL back then that people enjoyed. But when the meta finally got figured out, the game sucked big times. HOTS today is miles above what WOL ever was in terms of game quality.
Acer.Nerchio: Yes, i think drops are too powerful and zerg is too weak outside of creep while being too strong on creep.
thats spot on: too strong drops mean everything but mutas force Z in a very bad and purely defensive position. (apart from hydras being too weak). also especially mass banes on creep are way too strong while they are way too weak offcreep.
what nerchio forgot to mention is that T needs a way to transition into a stronger lategame after going bio.
Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing.
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is.....
On July 06 2014 20:36 Decendos wrote: Acer.Nerchio: Yes, i think drops are too powerful and zerg is too weak outside of creep while being too strong on creep.
thats spot on: too strong drops mean everything but mutas force Z in a very bad and purely defensive position. (apart from hydras being too weak). also especially mass banes on creep are way too strong while they are way too weak offcreep.
what nerchio forgot to mention is that T needs a way to transition into a stronger lategame after going bio.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
On July 06 2014 20:38 playa wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing.
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is.....
It's fucking boring to play mech.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers.
On July 06 2014 20:38 playa wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing.
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is.....
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers.
I don't think sc2 mech will be fun to play, unless vultures and spidermines are added into the game.
On July 06 2014 20:38 playa wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing.
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is.....
It's fucking boring to play mech.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers.
I don't think sc2 mech will be fun to play, unless vultures and spidermines are added into the game.
Well you just need to be able to play aggressively with mech. Copying the exact BW units aren't necceasary to do that.
What instead could be done is to reduce transformation time of Vikings/hellbat-Hellions in order to encourage more aggressive use of them. Right now static defense kills terran harass too effectively, but if;
A) Hellion to hellbat transformation was a lot faster, and B) Hellbat dealt more damage to armored than vs light, then you use Hellions to get into range of the armored unts/static defense and then transform which would make terran harassplay a lot stronger.
Further, I happen to believe that Banshee's are too slow in the later game. Both Mutas and Overseers are faster than Banshee's, which kinda makes them useless later game (and that applies to them vs all races). I think there could have been a speed-upgrade for this unit (perhaps the upgrade could increase the speed of Ravens as well).
There are definitely a ton of variables that could be tweaked, and Sc2 actually has a lot of good ideas that were just hopelessly implemented. If Blizzard really spent the time on LOTV to tweak values of all units in order to encourage aggression, maintaining/increasing defenders advantage and improving micro-interactions, mech could be incredible fun I believe. You can even create microinteractons through the Thor transformations against Carrier interceptors (like transformation the thor back and fourth betwen splash mode and AA armored mode).
Actually mech is already really fun to play vs bio in Sc2 for a couple of reasons;
1) Static defense/bunkers doens't hardcounter mech harass. 2) Mech can be aggressive in midgame, unlike in WOL as the Hellbat makes it stronger in lower numers. 3) Mech is more microintensive through Hellbat drops during battles.
On July 06 2014 20:38 playa wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing.
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is.....
It's fucking boring to play mech.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers.
I don't think sc2 mech will be fun to play, unless vultures and spidermines are added into the game.
Well you just need to be able to play aggressively with mech. Copying the exact BW units aren't necceasary to do that.
What instead could be done is to reduce transformation time of Vikings/hellbat-Hellions in order to encourage more aggressive use of them. Right now static defense kills terran harass too effectively, but if;
A) Hellion to hellbat transformation was a lot faster, and B) Hellbat dealt more damage to armored than vs light, then you use Hellions to get into range of the armored unts/static defense and then transform which would make terran harassplay a lot stronger.
Further, I happen to believe that Banshee's are too slow in the later game. Both Mutas and Overseers are faster than Banshee's, which kinda makes them useless later game (and that applies to them vs all races). I think there could have been a speed-upgrade for this unit (perhaps the upgrade could increase the speed of Ravens as well).
There are definitely a ton of variables that could be tweaked, and Sc2 actually has a lot of good ideas that were just hopelessly implemented. If Blizzard really spent the time on LOTV to tweak values of all units in order to encourage aggression, maintaining/increasing defenders advantage and improving micro-interactions, mech could be incredible fun I believe. You can even create microinteractons through the Thor transformations against Carrier interceptors (like transformation the thor back and fourth betwen splash mode and AA armored mode).
Actually mech is already really fun to play vs bio in Sc2 for a couple of reasons;
1) Static defense/bunkers doens't hardcounter mech harass. 2) Mech can be aggressive in midgame, unlike in WOL as the Hellbat makes it stronger in lower numers. 3) Mech is more microintensive through Hellbat drops during battles.
100% agree as a mech player. I love playing mech vs bio and even mech vs mech. Also Bio vs mech is really balanced although using different units. But you have to turtle so hard vs Zerg and Protoss because of mech's weaknesses that i despise these matchups.
Raven maximum energy from 200 to 100 (starting energy stays at 50/75 respectively) PDD cost from 125 to 100. Seeker Missile cost from 100 to 75. Auto Turret cost to 50 to 25.
1spell and...:S, terran doesnt need an another real caster? there was a lot of suggestions about raven buff/nerf u proposed but i feel like they were too oriented to compensate the current situation. Also i like the idea to keep a some energy so FB can kill caster 75 NRG per spell 150 max NRG no more Corvid Reactor ? if u choose to max raven nrg and to have 2 spell available, u exposed ur caster.
Ravens basically always die to feedbacks
i dont play that much terran mech but can u explain hoow this happen cause mech has a lot of scan to check the way and speed raven > speed HT
On July 06 2014 20:38 playa wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing.
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is.....
It's fucking boring to play mech.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers.
I don't think sc2 mech will be fun to play, unless vultures and spidermines are added into the game.
Well you just need to be able to play aggressively with mech. Copying the exact BW units aren't necceasary to do that.
What instead could be done is to reduce transformation time of Vikings/hellbat-Hellions in order to encourage more aggressive use of them. Right now static defense kills terran harass too effectively, but if;
A) Hellion to hellbat transformation was a lot faster, and B) Hellbat dealt more damage to armored than vs light, then you use Hellions to get into range of the armored unts/static defense and then transform which would make terran harassplay a lot stronger.
Further, I happen to believe that Banshee's are too slow in the later game. Both Mutas and Overseers are faster than Banshee's, which kinda makes them useless later game (and that applies to them vs all races). I think there could have been a speed-upgrade for this unit (perhaps the upgrade could increase the speed of Ravens as well).
There are definitely a ton of variables that could be tweaked, and Sc2 actually has a lot of good ideas that were just hopelessly implemented. If Blizzard really spent the time on LOTV to tweak values of all units in order to encourage aggression, maintaining/increasing defenders advantage and improving micro-interactions, mech could be incredible fun I believe. You can even create microinteractons through the Thor transformations against Carrier interceptors (like transformation the thor back and fourth betwen splash mode and AA armored mode).
Actually mech is already really fun to play vs bio in Sc2 for a couple of reasons;
1) Static defense/bunkers doens't hardcounter mech harass. 2) Mech can be aggressive in midgame, unlike in WOL as the Hellbat makes it stronger in lower numers. 3) Mech is more microintensive through Hellbat drops during battles.
100% agree as a mech player. I love playing mech vs bio and even mech vs mech. Also Bio vs mech is really balanced although using different units. But you have to turtle so hard vs Zerg and Protoss because of mech's weaknesses that i despise these matchups.
TvT really doesn't get enough praise for how good of a matchup it actually is atm. It has everything;
1) Early game variations with lots of micro-based builds 2) Different styles with different advantages (bio vs mech) that all leads to fun gameplay 3) Battles are relatively micro-based. 4) Lots of small skirmishes/positional play (not to be misunderstood with turtling) combined w/ a relatively high defenders advantage which makes games more back-and-fourth rather than one battle and GG.
IMO there has never been a better matchup in the history of Starcraft. The issue with all BW matchups was that they had quite little variation. TvZ in BW = Bio opening. TvP = mech. PvZ = Forge opening into Corsair. TvT = mech vs mech.
Sc2 TvT, however, really takes the best of everything.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Airtoss still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Fixed that for you
Since when is Tempest/VR/Phoenix/MSC not a thing in PvZ? I'm pretty sure that not only is it viable, but on some maps it's actually the optimal way to play late game Protoss.
Would that Terrans had your problems, 4/16 (1/4) units not standard in PvT! A travesty! Try 7/13. Yeah, that's over half.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Dear Blizzard,
Can you tell that the pros are every bit as god damn fucking tired of band aid solutions as the rest of us?
Please do enough work over the course of an expansion to justify its cost the way you did with WC3.
Mech still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Buffing Medivac speed is an asshole thing to do because it further cements that Terran can't play a straight up game without doing crazy aggression. How about you make Terran playable without needing all those Medivac drops, buffed or otherwise? How about you make macro mech work in TvZ without Ravens?
Thanks.
Very sincerely, People
Thank you so much.
Also, ignoring the community ideas and coming up with these half ass solutions obvioulsy isn't working out
On July 06 2014 20:38 playa wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing.
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is.....
It's fucking boring to play mech.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers.
I don't think sc2 mech will be fun to play, unless vultures and spidermines are added into the game.
Well you just need to be able to play aggressively with mech. Copying the exact BW units aren't necceasary to do that.
What instead could be done is to reduce transformation time of Vikings/hellbat-Hellions in order to encourage more aggressive use of them. Right now static defense kills terran harass too effectively, but if;
A) Hellion to hellbat transformation was a lot faster, and B) Hellbat dealt more damage to armored than vs light, then you use Hellions to get into range of the armored unts/static defense and then transform which would make terran harassplay a lot stronger.
Further, I happen to believe that Banshee's are too slow in the later game. Both Mutas and Overseers are faster than Banshee's, which kinda makes them useless later game (and that applies to them vs all races). I think there could have been a speed-upgrade for this unit (perhaps the upgrade could increase the speed of Ravens as well).
There are definitely a ton of variables that could be tweaked, and Sc2 actually has a lot of good ideas that were just hopelessly implemented. If Blizzard really spent the time on LOTV to tweak values of all units in order to encourage aggression, maintaining/increasing defenders advantage and improving micro-interactions, mech could be incredible fun I believe. You can even create microinteractons through the Thor transformations against Carrier interceptors (like transformation the thor back and fourth betwen splash mode and AA armored mode).
Actually mech is already really fun to play vs bio in Sc2 for a couple of reasons;
1) Static defense/bunkers doens't hardcounter mech harass. 2) Mech can be aggressive in midgame, unlike in WOL as the Hellbat makes it stronger in lower numers. 3) Mech is more microintensive through Hellbat drops during battles.
100% agree as a mech player. I love playing mech vs bio and even mech vs mech. Also Bio vs mech is really balanced although using different units. But you have to turtle so hard vs Zerg and Protoss because of mech's weaknesses that i despise these matchups.
TvT really doesn't get enough praise for how good of a matchup it actually is atm. It has everything;
1) Early game variations with lots of micro-based builds 2) Different styles with different advantages (bio vs mech) that all leads to fun gameplay 3) Battles are relatively micro-based. 4) Lots of small skirmishes/positional play (not to be misunderstood with turtling) combined w/ a relatively high defenders advantage which makes games more back-and-fourth rather than one battle and GG.
IMO there has never been a matchup that has been in a better state than what Sc2 is in right now. The issue with all BW matchups was also that they had quite little variation. TvZ in BW = Bio opening. TvP = mech. PvZ = Forge opening into Corsair. TvT = mech vs mech.
Sc2 TvT, however, really takes the best of everything.
Jokling aside I think there is a real problem with how terran can get units out. Zergs and Protoss seems to have a production With warp gate / inject who is really usefull in late game scenarios.
I think terran need an "emergency prodution" like a spell you cast with OC or with baraks, which allow you to drop units kinda like mule. But of course near a terran buildings or somthing like that :p.
For me terran need to have the same advantages than other races on production.
On July 06 2014 07:06 Faust852 wrote: Lol some pro are really fucking biased lol.
Yeah, I agree. Except Nerchio who seems really not biaised, drops are incredibly difficult to deal with for zergs, you know you push one button and mutas can't catch them, that's for sure....................................... God I hate reading biaised opinions like this.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Dear Blizzard,
Can you tell that the pros are every bit as god damn fucking tired of band aid solutions as the rest of us?
Please do enough work over the course of an expansion to justify its cost the way you did with WC3.
Mech still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Buffing Medivac speed is an asshole thing to do because it further cements that Terran can't play a straight up game without doing crazy aggression. How about you make Terran playable without needing all those Medivac drops, buffed or otherwise? How about you make macro mech work in TvZ without Ravens?
Thanks.
Very sincerely, People
I am one of the people and I think mech is fine. Mech is doing well in proleague. It is also boring ass to watch and play if it isn't TvT. You don't speak for the "people".
Very sincerely,
A person. Without delusions of speaking for the people.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Dear Blizzard,
Can you tell that the pros are every bit as god damn fucking tired of band aid solutions as the rest of us?
Please do enough work over the course of an expansion to justify its cost the way you did with WC3.
Mech still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Buffing Medivac speed is an asshole thing to do because it further cements that Terran can't play a straight up game without doing crazy aggression. How about you make Terran playable without needing all those Medivac drops, buffed or otherwise? How about you make macro mech work in TvZ without Ravens?
Thanks.
Very sincerely, People
I am one of the people and I think mech is fine. Mech is doing well in proleague. It is also boring ass to watch and play if it isn't TvT. You don't speak for the "people".
Very sincerely,
A person. Without delusions of speaking for the people.
I didn't say I speak for all people. But surely I speak for more than myself.
If mech is boring then make it not fucking boring. My god, this isn't rocket science. Blizzard made units that suck, and therefore they make these units weak so that no one will use them, because if people used them, then the game would suck to play and watch?????? You know what that sounds like? A game that is horrendously designed. You know what should happen to a game that is horrendously designed? It should be redesigned when people pay for updates, ie. expansions.
(also, we have very different ideas of what "doing well" means. For me, mech isn't doing well until there are standard mech builds that your opponent knows you're going to do and still can't stop them, which don't rely on 1/2 big engagements to decide the game. I want macro, standard mech play. I don't think that's asking too much.)
edit: sorry if I'm coming off as an asshole. I promise it's not directed at you. But the idea that Blizzard's gotten away with being lazy as hell for four years, and they're going to get away with it even more because people make excuses for them, drives me up the walls. If something in the game is bad, that's no one's fault but the designers. Their job is to make things not bad. If things are bad, they're not doing their job. If mech sucks, it needs to not suck. If mech is boring, it needs to not be boring. Not because "mech simply must exist" (although kind of, if Bbyong vs Flash is any indication), but because there are more Terran mech units than non-mech units!!! A lot more!!!
And to add insult to injury, designing a game has never been easier. Blizzard can literally crowdsource game design of SC2 at this point. They can beta test anything for zero cost. Just throw anything into the patch tester and let us have at it for a week or two. Any harebrained idea. Anything at all. It's that easy. Try random things and see if they work, because we're here and we'll test them. And they don't take advantage of it. I do find it insulting, because it tells me they don't care enough to do even that. Back in WC3, Blizzard took a huge risk on fixing the game with the expansion, they added tons of multiplayer content, and they had no way to test any of it until the actual beta of the game. That was dedication. This is just coasting. "It's good enough."
I would focus on the Raven or perhaps the ghost for adjustments. Here are some suggestions that could be tried individually or in some combination.
Raven:
Reduce its cost Remove the need for a tech lab to build one. Would still need one for the upgrades. This may be to drastic, though worth testing/entertaining the possibility.
The main aim is to make ravens easier to get and reduce terrans reliance on scans to clear creep/check for burrowed units. meaning they could use more mules and have more units. pdds can absorb some muta shots and seeker missiles at the very least provide some zoning control and force more micro from the zerg.
Earlier/easier access to the raven also opens up some possibilities for early attacks against protoss as pdd blocks photon overcharge and stalker shots. Also seeker missiles ignore the immortal shield. Of course protoss still have access to feedback/storms/colossus/phoenix, plenty of ways to fight back.
The only really difference in Tvt would be reducing the effectiveness of banshee openings.
Make auto turrets armoured units instead of structures. As a structure they take 2 banelings to destroy(80 damage each), as a unit they would take 8+ (20 damage each). This would allow them to be used as a form of forcefields against banelings, though of course they require more set up time.
Adds potential for some smart positional play. the banelings do not want to blow up the auto turrets as it takes far too many. The terran can place widow mines where the turrets are not blocking, either way it delays the lings/banelings and the marines are then better protected and more of them are left alive to fight the mutas. Also less scans more mules.
They could see some use in blocking zealots in TvP if the raven also costs less although protoss has units with a bonus against armoured that could clear them quickly.
The Ghost: reduce its cost Emps are all ready incredibly strong at stripping shields and preventing storms
Allowing Terrans better access to ravens and ghosts, the abilities are already very strong and the fact that they are not seeing much use suggests they could use a cost reduction.
Final idea, give terrans a form of Irradiate (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Irradiate) Either replace snipe with 'Irradiated round' that functions similarly to as described in the link. Alternatively change seeker missile. It now travels almost instantly and attaches itself to a unit, it then 'pulses' with a series of small aoe explosions damaging both the unit that it is attached to and others that are nearby. the faster a player moves the unit out the less aoe damage they take.
Important considerations would be if it can be used against every unit, clumps of mutas/corrupters/swarm hosts/siege tanks etc. Most importantly workers. It should do enough damage over time to threaten a clump of mutas and should also allow enough time for a player to move a worker out of a mineral line to prevent losing more than the worker it is attached to.
Would need to work out the numbers for all of the above, but I think they might prove positive adjustments.
How about leaving widow mines with the same kill radius but adding a 'shock' radius that just disorientates, i.e. slows attacking units, that way mitigating some of the excesses of mass mutas/banelings/charge zealots etc. Short lived mini time warp.
Just a thought.
Have enjoyed the TL threads on balance, but regarded Polt as an example of the trend being bucked. Then Hyun did a job on him in last 8 WCS AM......
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Airtoss still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Fixed that for you
Since when is Tempest/VR/Phoenix/MSC not a thing in PvZ? I'm pretty sure that not only is it viable, but on some maps it's actually the optimal way to play late game Protoss.
Would that Terrans had your problems, 4/16 (1/4) units not standard in PvT! A travesty! Try 7/13. Yeah, that's over half.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Airtoss still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Fixed that for you
Since when is Tempest/VR/Phoenix/MSC not a thing in PvZ? I'm pretty sure that not only is it viable, but on some maps it's actually the optimal way to play late game Protoss.
Would that Terrans had your problems, 4/16 (1/4) units not standard in PvT! A travesty! Try 7/13. Yeah, that's over half.
And since when mech is not working in TvZ?
I don't consider all-ins/gimmick builds that are decided with one or two engagements to be "working mech." Mech is working when I can tell you before the game that I'm going mech, approximately what units I'll be using, and we can have a close game that lasts 30 minutes that's full of back and forth engagements. Also positional play. That's what mech working looks like. Soulkey getting caught with his pants down because someone made 10 Hellbats instead of 12, which allowed him to get an extra Thor in with his deathball push? That's not mech working, that's gimmicky deathball bio without bio tag.
So just to sum up, it's the 3rd test map shitted by proplayers (easy to understand why) and prolly changed accordingly soon and the first balance patch driven by a TL thread. Aside from 2\3 "beta fix" patches after the release, the Hots development is clearly in TL hands, nothing related to "hearing feedbacks",the feedbacks about Terran being up are on the internet till eight months at least, just clearly sucking TL's cock to save the face with the users.
On July 06 2014 06:48 pure.Wasted wrote: Airtoss still isn't viable 4 years later. This is not OK. It's broken. Fix it. That's what your job is. Just because you didn't get it right when HOTS shipped doesn't mean you get to take a break until LOTV. That's not how screwing up your job works.
Fixed that for you
Since when is Tempest/VR/Phoenix/MSC not a thing in PvZ? I'm pretty sure that not only is it viable, but on some maps it's actually the optimal way to play late game Protoss.
Would that Terrans had your problems, 4/16 (1/4) units not standard in PvT! A travesty! Try 7/13. Yeah, that's over half.
And since when mech is not working in TvZ?
It hasn't worked well in the Korean pro level for at least 3 months.
On July 06 2014 20:38 playa wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure what buff terran late game means, when they stay on the same units all game long. All I can think of is, you must be telling me you want the addition of +4 weapons and +4 armor for terran, which I wouldn't mind seeing.
I don't get why people don't use mech more, either. I'd much rather face bio, since they combined upgrades for mech air and ground (which I don't agree with). It's harder to face... I don't play zerg, but I always hear about how hard ravens/mech is to play against, yet hardly anyone uses mech... what gives? No one would rather play against mech, yet everyone uses bio and then complains about how hard it is.....
It's fucking boring to play mech.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
It, does however create an important defenders advatnage where the game is more back-and-fourth rather than one engagement and GG. Creep spreading gives the terran an incentive to go out on the map in the midgame rather than sit in his base, which opens up for small scaled battles. Creep spread is IMO an extremely vital part of the matchup-dynamic, and helps to explain why it is such a mechanically demanding matchup, though one always can discuss the exact numbers.
I don't think sc2 mech will be fun to play, unless vultures and spidermines are added into the game.
Well you just need to be able to play aggressively with mech. Copying the exact BW units aren't necceasary to do that.
What instead could be done is to reduce transformation time of Vikings/hellbat-Hellions in order to encourage more aggressive use of them. Right now static defense kills terran harass too effectively, but if;
A) Hellion to hellbat transformation was a lot faster, and B) Hellbat dealt more damage to armored than vs light, then you use Hellions to get into range of the armored unts/static defense and then transform which would make terran harassplay a lot stronger.
Further, I happen to believe that Banshee's are too slow in the later game. Both Mutas and Overseers are faster than Banshee's, which kinda makes them useless later game (and that applies to them vs all races). I think there could have been a speed-upgrade for this unit (perhaps the upgrade could increase the speed of Ravens as well).
There are definitely a ton of variables that could be tweaked, and Sc2 actually has a lot of good ideas that were just hopelessly implemented. If Blizzard really spent the time on LOTV to tweak values of all units in order to encourage aggression, maintaining/increasing defenders advantage and improving micro-interactions, mech could be incredible fun I believe. You can even create microinteractons through the Thor transformations against Carrier interceptors (like transformation the thor back and fourth betwen splash mode and AA armored mode).
Actually mech is already really fun to play vs bio in Sc2 for a couple of reasons;
1) Static defense/bunkers doens't hardcounter mech harass. 2) Mech can be aggressive in midgame, unlike in WOL as the Hellbat makes it stronger in lower numers. 3) Mech is more microintensive through Hellbat drops during battles.
100% agree as a mech player. I love playing mech vs bio and even mech vs mech. Also Bio vs mech is really balanced although using different units. But you have to turtle so hard vs Zerg and Protoss because of mech's weaknesses that i despise these matchups.
TvT really doesn't get enough praise for how good of a matchup it actually is atm. It has everything;
1) Early game variations with lots of micro-based builds 2) Different styles with different advantages (bio vs mech) that all leads to fun gameplay 3) Battles are relatively micro-based. 4) Lots of small skirmishes/positional play (not to be misunderstood with turtling) combined w/ a relatively high defenders advantage which makes games more back-and-fourth rather than one battle and GG.
IMO there has never been a better matchup in the history of Starcraft. The issue with all BW matchups was that they had quite little variation. TvZ in BW = Bio opening. TvP = mech. PvZ = Forge opening into Corsair. TvT = mech vs mech.
Sc2 TvT, however, really takes the best of everything.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your main point, but TvT gets an annoyingly huge amount of praise to the point that I occasionally want to vomit blood.
On July 06 2014 20:36 Decendos wrote: Acer.Nerchio: Yes, i think drops are too powerful and zerg is too weak outside of creep while being too strong on creep.
thats spot on: too strong drops mean everything but mutas force Z in a very bad and purely defensive position. (apart from hydras being too weak). also especially mass banes on creep are way too strong while they are way too weak offcreep.
what nerchio forgot to mention is that T needs a way to transition into a stronger lategame after going bio.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
well yes but after Z gets to 3/3 with upgraded mutas and lots of lategame creepspread it gets hard for T, especially with some ultras involved. maybe T should transition earlier while 3/3 vs 2/2 but into what? starting to get 1 extra starport and adding ravens + 1/0 or 2/0 thors? what i would like to see is T getting two armories in the late midgame once they start banking gas anyway so adding mech units would be a lot stronger of a transition than the way they do it now.
On July 06 2014 20:36 Decendos wrote: Acer.Nerchio: Yes, i think drops are too powerful and zerg is too weak outside of creep while being too strong on creep.
thats spot on: too strong drops mean everything but mutas force Z in a very bad and purely defensive position. (apart from hydras being too weak). also especially mass banes on creep are way too strong while they are way too weak offcreep.
what nerchio forgot to mention is that T needs a way to transition into a stronger lategame after going bio.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
well yes but after Z gets to 3/3 with upgraded mutas and lots of lategame creepspread it gets hard for T, especially with some ultras involved. maybe T should transition earlier while 3/3 vs 2/2 but into what? starting to get 1 extra starport and adding ravens + 1/0 or 2/0 thors? what i would like to see is T getting two armories in the late midgame once they start banking gas anyway so adding mech units would be a lot stronger of a transition than the way they do it now.
Blizzard need to look at us low level players. Most of their income come from the players with APM less than 50.(Diamond or below) They need to make the game playable for us, not just top tier progammers.
On July 06 2014 20:36 Decendos wrote: Acer.Nerchio: Yes, i think drops are too powerful and zerg is too weak outside of creep while being too strong on creep.
thats spot on: too strong drops mean everything but mutas force Z in a very bad and purely defensive position. (apart from hydras being too weak). also especially mass banes on creep are way too strong while they are way too weak offcreep.
what nerchio forgot to mention is that T needs a way to transition into a stronger lategame after going bio.
I think getting to 3/3 faster than Z every time is good enough and Zerg never wins engages outside creep in late game either.
well yes but after Z gets to 3/3 with upgraded mutas and lots of lategame creepspread it gets hard for T, especially with some ultras involved. maybe T should transition earlier while 3/3 vs 2/2 but into what? starting to get 1 extra starport and adding ravens + 1/0 or 2/0 thors? what i would like to see is T getting two armories in the late midgame once they start banking gas anyway so adding mech units would be a lot stronger of a transition than the way they do it now.
yeah exactly what i was talking about. MVP is 2/0 at the game deciding fight vs 5/3 ultras and 3/3 lings with adrenaline glands which do like over 9000 DPS to 0 armor thors. i would love to see a game that goes exactly that way with the only difference of a 2nd much earlier armory. thats imo one of the only ways i can think about letting T solve the lategame problem (only talking about TvZ) themselves.
i just hope blizz doesnt buff T midgame even more with WMs and medivac buffs which would just want to make T end the game in the midgame even more and not solve any lategame weakness.
Thx for the article! great read great suggestions and thoughts, I am reliefed and thank you for doing these. Unfortunately Blizzard, although telling us otherwise, are not reading our thoughts or the Progamers thoughts. It has been so long now, since terran is struggling, that I don't have hope for them to change it at all. Since when are Terrans asking for lategameunits or Tank Buff or that the fights should be more forgiving in a way? Defenders Advantage that doesn't make every TvZ the same (like stated above, that the terran has to press for the win from the very first minute, so they don't have to go through the lategame)
I love how Dimaga and Nerchio just have their head in the sand, while everyone else offers solutions. LOL
That said, I agree with alot of what their saying. Terrans early/mid isnt the issue, its their complete lack of late game against either race, and even if you do get that perfect composition to win the fight, tech switching is basically impossible, where its easy for the other two.
But in all seriousness, in both TvP and TvZ the issues lies in late game. As most of the progamers suggested, the fundamentals of having static defense against muta cloud and prism harass is critical, and most of the time terran needs to leave 1/4 of their army at home: according to xenocider, I feel like most games I have seen so far (in the proscene at least) in both ZvT and PvT is that Terran units are too fragile... I think medivac boosts could be a factor to winning/losing, but I think a better solution to dealing with the banelings and late game protoss tier 3 upgrade dmg is just nerf the amount of hp it would cost on the stim-ing units.
Although that might create an imbalance in the early game where medivac presence isn't very prevalent, it wouldn't be as big of an edge since protoss and zerg usually have static defense erected even in the early-mid games.
Drop the "light armor" on hellions, decrease their damage so it take 3 attacks to kill zerglings, this way zerg has to do more than baneling to kill them off. As far as dealing with muta clouds, I don't have a strong thought on that, but if they have to produce roaches to counter hellbats then they won't have as many mutas.
Terran shouldn't be turned into Toss or Zerg, their lategame doesn't need more damage or health, it needs more mobility.
Most people just want to buff the Terran deathball to be able to fight the other races' deathballs, that would kill SC2. The reason people love to watch Terran games is that they aren't deathball vs deathball, but it seems like everyone just wants to give Terran a better deathball and watch exactly that.
So the medivac buff makes sense in that it lets Terran be Terran, it might not scale well enough into the late game but it's a good start.
On July 07 2014 02:19 Cheren wrote: Terran shouldn't be turned into Toss or Zerg, their lategame doesn't need more damage or health, it needs more mobility.
Most people just want to buff the Terran deathball to be able to fight the other races' deathballs, that would kill SC2. The reason people love to watch Terran games is that they aren't deathball vs deathball, but it seems like everyone just wants to give Terran a better deathball and watch exactly that.
So the medivac buff makes sense in that it lets Terran be Terran, it might not scale well enough into the late game but it's a good start.
making mech/factory units stronger earlier is not promoting deathballs. It prevents turtling into a deathball
On July 07 2014 02:19 Cheren wrote: Terran shouldn't be turned into Toss or Zerg, their lategame doesn't need more damage or health, it needs more mobility.
Most people just want to buff the Terran deathball to be able to fight the other races' deathballs, that would kill SC2. The reason people love to watch Terran games is that they aren't deathball vs deathball, but it seems like everyone just wants to give Terran a better deathball and watch exactly that.
So the medivac buff makes sense in that it lets Terran be Terran, it might not scale well enough into the late game but it's a good start.
making mech/factory units stronger earlier is not promoting deathballs. It prevents turtling into a deathball
Mech is -the- king of turtling into a deathball. :|
On July 06 2014 22:18 Startyr wrote: Final idea, give terrans a form of Irradiate (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Irradiate) Either replace snipe with 'Irradiated round' that functions similarly to as described in the link.
Yeah, I was also thinking that the time for Irradiate has come. It'd improve the utility of Ghosts, and a Ghost made for such a purpose doesn't require infantry upgrades in order to contribute. Then again, inspecting the map for the little red dot is a fate I'd wish on only my worst enemies.
They should nerf oracle HP. Since oracles got the speed/acc boost they no longer need the HP to perform their harassment role. They are too effective at fighting marines straight up and being able to kill so many drones while ignoring the queen is also just sick.
On July 07 2014 02:19 Cheren wrote: Terran shouldn't be turned into Toss or Zerg, their lategame doesn't need more damage or health, it needs more mobility.
Most people just want to buff the Terran deathball to be able to fight the other races' deathballs, that would kill SC2. The reason people love to watch Terran games is that they aren't deathball vs deathball, but it seems like everyone just wants to give Terran a better deathball and watch exactly that.
So the medivac buff makes sense in that it lets Terran be Terran, it might not scale well enough into the late game but it's a good start.
making mech/factory units stronger earlier is not promoting deathballs. It prevents turtling into a deathball
It would just be a reskin of the protoss deathball timing, unless you made mech more mobile somehow like with sieged tanks loading into medivacs or something.
On July 06 2014 15:21 Shinespark wrote: I know koreans barely bother to reply when you guys ask them for opinions on balance, but due to the huge difference in opinion between them and foreigners, I don't think asking only foreigners will give anyone a very clear picture.
Again, we did this on fairly short notice and couldn't get in touch with our Korean contacts. Either way, a lot of the opinions, especially those expressed by Xenocider, Snute, and qxc are all very insightful and make a lot of sense. And while there are differing opinions on the power of Protoss and Zerg, it seems that everyone universally agrees that the changes Blizzard is proposing miss the mark at actually helping and only target an extraordinarily powerful aspect of Terran.
That said, I think, after the feedback Blizzard has received on these changes, they will start to look at more late-game oriented solutions to try and allow Terran to smooth out in the lategame instead of having to approach it with a huge lead from the mid game. If they make a change or propose another series of changes, you can bet that we'll be on top of it, and we'll probably include Koreans this time.
Do you really think that Blizzard will react to the feedback?
The changes proposed are "not addressing the issue" according to almost everyones statements That means that either the balance tem have an insight that the community does not share or that they are not understanding the problem.
Either way the feedback makes no difference
Blizzard definitely reads TL stuff, as we are pretty much the hub of English SC2 news, coverage, articles, and discussion. Our past two articles over proposed changes seem to have steered Blizzard away from some crazier changes (4.6? movement speed DTs, 50 gas hydras, etc.), as Blizzard had a definitive place to look for not only pro feedback, but community feedback on the pro's thoughts as well. The week before "Welcome to ZPcraft" was published, Blizzard stated in the BNet forums that no changes for Terran were on the horizon as they felt everything was balanced; ONE DAY after the article was released, Blizzard stated that they were looking to make some changes to Terran as it was perceived to be weaker.
Blizzard has always read and reacted to feedback, sometimes more actively than other times. Sometimes they act far too quickly (snipe nerf, EMP nerf, widow mine nerf, etc.) and sometimes they act too slow (WoL Zerg). However, they are always looking for feedback content for their games, and these articles are an excellent source for Blizzard to get a good read on 1) how high-level, pro players feel about the state of the game and 2) how much everyone below masters in enjoying the game.
Pretty much everyone can agree that Terran's late and early game has some holes while the mid game is insanely strong. As a result, I think the feedback in this thread is likely to convince Blizzard to NOT buff mines and medivacs, but rather look toward a better late game solution.
On July 07 2014 00:21 iHirO wrote: Out of interest, does anyone have good replays or VODs that highlight particular Terran balance issues?
Just name a high level game where a Terran beat a Protoss in long a macro game. This never happens. Also Terran vs Zerg macro game is almost impossible with bio. Mech works only on mediocre players, on good Zerg players that know how to deal with mech is a loss almost 100%.
On July 07 2014 03:11 SC2John wrote: Pretty much everyone can agree that Terran's late and early game has some holes while the mid game is insanely strong. As a result, I think the feedback in this thread is likely to convince Blizzard to NOT buff mines and medivacs, but rather look toward a better late game solution.
A Mine buff in TvZ cannot be circumvented. It's impossible to fix bio issues without the Mine recovering some of its old power.
If Terran's midgame is "insanely strong," then why is there a lategame problem at all? Terrans would just systematically opt for the "win the game before" solution. I don't understand why people disconnect lategame issues from midgame, as if both phases were independent from each other. As it stands now, there are lategame issues precisely because Terran's midgame is not delivering as it should, so both Zerg and Protoss can block Terran's midgame play with game plans like "defend with blink colo dual forge until 3-0-3" or "defend on creep until 25+ mutas" then smoothly transition into their superior lategame.
Terrans just need another caster unit. protoss: mofocore/mofoship, sentries, hts and oracle zerg: queen, infestor, viper terran: ghost, raven
I see a more dynamic terran if it can get a ground factory caster unit with mostly support abilities. The unit should focus generally defensive support Bringing back defensive spell matrix I think would be a very good start AOE optic flare would be something fun to play with considering the amount of cloaked units terrans have now
Also, I think turning ghost back into a gas exhaustive unit would be a better idea.
On July 07 2014 03:11 SC2John wrote: Pretty much everyone can agree that Terran's late and early game has some holes while the mid game is insanely strong. As a result, I think the feedback in this thread is likely to convince Blizzard to NOT buff mines and medivacs, but rather look toward a better late game solution.
A Mine buff in TvZ cannot be circumvented. It's impossible to fix bio issues without the Mine recovering some of its old power.
If Terran's midgame is "insanely strong," then why is there a lategame problem at all? Terrans would just systematically opt for the "win the game before" solution. I don't understand why people disconnect lategame issues from midgame, as if both phases were independent from each other. As it stands now, there are lategame issues precisely because Terran's midgame is not delivering as it should, so both Zerg and Protoss can block Terran's midgame play with game plans like "defend with blink colo dual forge until 3-0-3" or "defend on creep until 25+ mutas" then smoothly transition into their superior lategame.
Well said!
I don't feel like Terran's midgame is "insanely strong" either, because if it was the Protoss/Zerg wouldn't be hitting the late game with such advantages.
Sure, this is the one time Terran is able to do some damage without having cheesed, but I think the perception is that Terran pressure keeps Z/P defending during the midgame, while the reality is that Z/P are fending off the Terran so they can make their late game armies.
On July 07 2014 03:11 SC2John wrote: Pretty much everyone can agree that Terran's late and early game has some holes while the mid game is insanely strong. As a result, I think the feedback in this thread is likely to convince Blizzard to NOT buff mines and medivacs, but rather look toward a better late game solution.
A Mine buff in TvZ cannot be circumvented. It's impossible to fix bio issues without the Mine recovering some of its old power.
If Terran's midgame is "insanely strong," then why is there a lategame problem at all? Terrans would just systematically opt for the "win the game before" solution. I don't understand why people disconnect lategame issues from midgame, as if both phases were independent from each other. As it stands now, there are lategame issues precisely because Terran's midgame is not delivering as it should, so both Zerg and Protoss can block Terran's midgame play with game plans like "defend with blink colo dual forge until 3-0-3" or "defend on creep until 25+ mutas" then smoothly transition into their superior lategame.
The degree to which it is strong is probably up for discussion. The thing however is that it is Terran that can bring the pressure to the opponent more than the other way around. Hence it is strong in the sense that it forces the opponent into the defense (and still wins a ton of games of the back of this).
It's not strong enough to keep the opponent away from transitioning but neither is a roach/baneling push able to prevent a Terran from getting up his (midgame) medivac and bio production. Despite this, I think we would both call it a strong early game timing.
We should try 4-4 upradges for bio (Marine&Marauder.) They could stand against lategame Ultralisk and vs lategame Protoss. Should be interesting to atleast to test it! Cost would be like 500-500 + 500.-500 ofcourse!
On July 07 2014 03:11 SC2John wrote: Pretty much everyone can agree that Terran's late and early game has some holes while the mid game is insanely strong. As a result, I think the feedback in this thread is likely to convince Blizzard to NOT buff mines and medivacs, but rather look toward a better late game solution.
A Mine buff in TvZ cannot be circumvented. It's impossible to fix bio issues without the Mine recovering some of its old power.
If Terran's midgame is "insanely strong," then why is there a lategame problem at all? Terrans would just systematically opt for the "win the game before" solution. I don't understand why people disconnect lategame issues from midgame, as if both phases were independent from each other. As it stands now, there are lategame issues precisely because Terran's midgame is not delivering as it should, so both Zerg and Protoss can block Terran's midgame play with game plans like "defend with blink colo dual forge until 3-0-3" or "defend on creep until 25+ mutas" then smoothly transition into their superior lategame.
Well said!
I don't feel like Terran's midgame is "insanely strong" either, because if it was the Protoss/Zerg wouldn't be hitting the late game with such advantages.
Sure, this is the one time Terran is able to do some damage without having cheesed, but I think the perception is that Terran pressure keeps Z/P defending during the midgame, while the reality is that Z/P are fending off the Terran so they can make their late game armies.
Protoss is indeed fending off agression to reach a good late game. But for zerg its not exactly the same, zerg is usually defending while harassing because you really don't want to move out off creep, specially before hive. A protoss counter push after defending agression is much more common than zerg counter pushes (except with those super agressive roach plays). Also you can make zerg late game weaker forcing an even more defensive play on mid-game while for protoss its not as simple. You can delay the money composition from toss, but its not going to be any weaker when they get there as long as toss is alive.
For example, if toss have to build four more sentries early, 2 more gates before the third, and delay the third. They still are goint to have six gas eventually. They will NOT skip the robotics facility or the templar archives, its always worth it to get them at some point. If a protoss cannot tech, he is prolly almost dead, since he is goint to make units that trade badly vs a terran with time to get ghosts/widow mines or vikings to adjust the army composition. Delaying protoss only allows terran to get the "perfect army composition" that happens to be in disadvantage vs colossus HT. If something, forcing toss into less greedy builds might affect upgrade timings, and that would be great. Also, proxy stargates, dts and blink timings are going to be more dangerous for protoss if they fail to do enough damage.
For zerg, a stronger terran mid game can delay/kill/cancel bases and slow down the droning. Bases are 2 geysers that zerg is absolutely going to mine from. Each bane morphed is less mutas, thus forcing zerg to morph more on each fight is an cumulative damage that makes zerg late game weaker. Ultras? if the initial count is low terran is going to have a good marauder count before there are too many on the field, zerg is going to wish they had made more mutas instead. BL? same logic. And the muta cloud is going to be smaller during the entire game. Another alternative is to give terran a way to make the muta cloud less active, so i really like Snute's suggestion.
On July 07 2014 03:59 Lunareste wrote: I don't feel like Terran's midgame is "insanely strong" either, because if it was the Protoss/Zerg wouldn't be hitting the late game with such advantages.
TvZ isn't too bad, but TvP is tricky because Protoss can be so strong early game. If you fall behind at all in the early game you forgo your midgame advantage entirely and allow Protoss to enter late game unscathed. And as we all know TvP lategame is incredibly hard unless Protoss make a major mistake.
TvZ isn't that big of an issue IMO. Maybe its probably Terran favored except for Mech. Ravens are just sooo good against Zerg. As for variaty in Late game options yeaa, but it can be solved with bonus to massive from Tanks and Yamato Splash.
As for TvP...... I don't even know where to get started. Their is just so much wrong with this match up. To many hard counters.
Loved Dimaga....NERF TERRAN.
But it seems to be the general idea that Tanks need love. .
Something that I thought was a good idea is something that a friend suggested. Not so much the exact buff to make, but the idea of it being attached to a plus 3 upgrade, thus the buff is inherently and strictly a late game buff.
tanks still need a huge damage buff. they would be prolly used in tvz again and maybe even tvp. tanks are insanely bad on the offensive unless your opponent allows you to take very good position. (which never happens usually)
have you ever seen a straight up tank push on open field? almost every unit will trade cost effective vs tanks - this cannot be right, no matter how blizzard wants to promote clever usage of units. tanks should be fine in direct engagements and have a clear upper hand at choke points or high ground. the single fact that tanks can be easily flanked due to the lack of their mobility should make them stronger in straight up fights, yet this is not the case.
i see a very strong tank army that comes for a zerg in mid/lategame and zerg has to decide weather he wants to fight it/circle around it and pounce/counterattack. right now its a merely 1a flank with roaches/lings/whatever and you will see any mech army melt away. yet zerg has tons of options to absolutely roll over mech with things linke drops/nyduses/split armies/techswitches, etc.
On July 06 2014 07:06 Faust852 wrote: Lol some pro are really fucking biased lol.
And Downfall's article that you jack off to isn't biased?
Because a 100k words article with over 40 references is more biased than Dimaga's "Terran is too strong" and MaNa's "Terran is imbalance in lategame TvP" ? For real ? At least statistics tend to agree with DwF, not with MaNa.
There are lies, damned lies, and then, there are statistics.
Stats can be manipulated very easily to display favourably whatever you like.
On July 07 2014 03:11 SC2John wrote: Pretty much everyone can agree that Terran's late and early game has some holes while the mid game is insanely strong. As a result, I think the feedback in this thread is likely to convince Blizzard to NOT buff mines and medivacs, but rather look toward a better late game solution.
A Mine buff in TvZ cannot be circumvented. It's impossible to fix bio issues without the Mine recovering some of its old power.
If Terran's midgame is "insanely strong," then why is there a lategame problem at all? Terrans would just systematically opt for the "win the game before" solution. I don't understand why people disconnect lategame issues from midgame, as if both phases were independent from each other. As it stands now, there are lategame issues precisely because Terran's midgame is not delivering as it should, so both Zerg and Protoss can block Terran's midgame play with game plans like "defend with blink colo dual forge until 3-0-3" or "defend on creep until 25+ mutas" then smoothly transition into their superior lategame.
You wrote, yourself, in your article, that the mid game problems that Terran faces are a direct result of early game problems. You cited things like a plethora of possible all-ins or pressures that Protoss can do that forces Terran into a smaller box. You mentioned that the MSC allows Protoss to go into the mid game with up to 800 gas more than in WoL. You also cite queen range, speed, and creep advantages, and how they force the Terran to play on a razor thin edge in order to keep up in the mid game (and, as a result, are vulnerable to things like +1/+1 roach attacks).
On top of being fail-safe "greed" features, the MSC and—to a lesser extent—the Queen patch scripted the vT match-ups in such a way that even outclassed players are almost impervious to various early game threats that would otherwise kill or cripple them. Blizzard paved the way so midgame can be reached without much trouble (42): you can't outplay a 2000 hit points Cannon.
There has never been any real doubt, I think, as to the efficacy of Terran's mid game, which is, by far stronger than the other races. That said, IN YOUR ARTICLE, you specifically talk about Terran coming into the late game behind the other races, which was a direct result of early game invulnerability combined with a fair amount of mid game invulnerability (fueled in part bu the early game.
In an eerie combination of factors, Terran's bio play faces common issues in TvP and TvZ:
Terran has less options, leading to a more predictable (and thus more easily "countered") play Terran has a much higher vulnerability to all-ins (partially fueled by scouting issues) Terran is way more unforgiving: mistakes and sloppiness are punished harder, and once the race falls behind there is almost no comeback potential (in particular due to the weaker reproducibility) Terran has an inferior lategame.
In fact, all of the reasons you list in the opening of your article above are early and late game problems with relatively few mid game connections. Without doubt, the mid game is definitely the strongest stage of the game for Terran, and the power of bio can be a real headache in the hands of a good player.
I do not disagree that mines probably need to go back to their original power. However, there is no doubt of the power of MMM and mines in the mid game in all matchups. Personally, I think the best place for Blizzard to start is the late game, where they can literally buff ONE thing and not have it affect the entire matchup. The history of Terran is littered with early and mid game options that, combined with Terran's already strong mid game, made Terran seem invulnerable, therefore leading to a swift blow with the nerf hammer. Starting in the late game will allow Terrans, even Terrans who are behind from the early and mid game, to play more fairly in the Zerg and Protoss dominated late games.
If that isn't enough, then perhaps a buff to the early/mid game can get going. But a buff to the medivac? Why? What's the purpose of buffing Terrans where they're already strong? If you're going to buff a mid game unit, I would much rather just see a mine buff.
Basically every single guy said that Blizzard is going the wrong direction with the changes, as have just about everybody on just about every forum I've seen. Hopefully this won't be another situation where they refuse to be wrong, such as the oracle buff.
On another note, QXC makes a good point about receding creep. *Especially* from the overlords that spluge it all over your 3rd and 4th bases. It takes *forever* for that to recede and IMO it's a little too much.
With Protoss the issue is obviously mainly with the nexus cannon, and has been the whole time. There is no risk/reward mechanic in PvT as the protoss. You do literally whatever you want, and are 100% safe. It's broken.
Buffing mid-game Terran agression via Medivacs and Mines just seems out of place.
Tanks need to go from 35+15 (+3/+2) to something like 2 attacks 18+8 (+2/+1). Their "tankiness" also blows. Increase Thor base armor increased by 1. Increase High Impact Payload damage. Battlecruisers take too long to build and offer too little in return (they also go against the Terran micro).
On July 07 2014 14:11 Iron_ wrote: On another note, QXC makes a good point about receding creep. *Especially* from the overlords that spluge it all over your 3rd and 4th bases. It takes *forever* for that to recede and IMO it's a little too much.
Yup. It's not like if terrans could land their CC outside the creep to start mining, and relocate it later once it's gone.
On July 07 2014 18:08 DIMAGA wrote: sorry guys I missunderstand last question ^__^
Its OK it happens ^^ if you want us to amend your response we can do so just message Zeth/teoita ( I can't remember who it was that messaged you first) and we can sort that out if you would like
Prevent from having tank rekt bio in TvT and still allow tank to be more powerful vs Z or P. This is hard to do because you would have to add an alien type to both protoss and zerg units :D
On July 07 2014 21:42 klup wrote: Suggested Tank Buff:
Research : Alien Rounds XX s , K minerals, L gas
tanks do +Y bonus dmg to alien races.
Prevent from having tank rekt bio in TvT and still allow tank to be more powerful vs Z or P. This is hard to do because you would have to add an alien type to both protoss and zerg units :D
haha very creative thinking i like it
not gonna happen though because balancing match ups doesn't really work
On July 07 2014 21:42 klup wrote: Suggested Tank Buff:
Research : Alien Rounds XX s , K minerals, L gas
tanks do +Y bonus dmg to alien races.
Prevent from having tank rekt bio in TvT and still allow tank to be more powerful vs Z or P. This is hard to do because you would have to add an alien type to both protoss and zerg units :D
haha very creative thinking i like it
not gonna happen though because balancing match ups doesn't really work
well they did it with the mine that does +dmg to shields, why not do something along those lines with tanks ?
Because you'll end up with a bunch of upgrades that are useless in certain match-ups. We already have enough that are rarely researched, no need to add to the list.
I already dislike the +shield damage on the Widow Mine for the same reason, it's just weird. Just revert the damn thing to what it was and the shield damage can go.
As for tanks, you can tweak single shot damage and the AoE damage to work around the match-ups. Single target damage is mostly useful against Protoss as their units all have high health and the AoE damage applies more to Zerg. In TvT I'm not sure why everyone is always so afraid of having Marines getting vaporized by them when you get them yourself.
If Blizzard wants to avoid Siege Tanks being too powerful against Zerg early on (which is the only thing I can think of that might hold them back from buffing the unit), they can roll it in a generic damage upgrade like in WoL campaign with Maelstrom Rounds. Just add a flat damage upgrade to like 80 on the primary target and 50 splash, but only available with an Armory completed. Tanks, Factories, Armories and the upgrade all cost gas and time so you'd never be able to get it early with any decent number of Tanks.
I agree, why don't making widow mine fire 2 stronger rockets but with less splash? Would make much better against Protoss and not that bad against zerg. I hate that + damage to shield.
On July 07 2014 21:53 Thezzy wrote: Because you'll end up with a bunch of upgrades that are useless in certain match-ups. We already have enough that are rarely researched, no need to add to the list.
I already dislike the +shield damage on the Widow Mine for the same reason, it's just weird. Just revert the damn thing to what it was and the shield damage can go.
As for tanks, you can tweak single shot damage and the AoE damage to work around the match-ups. Single target damage is mostly useful against Protoss as their units all have high health and the AoE damage applies more to Zerg. In TvT I'm not sure why everyone is always so afraid of having Marines getting vaporized by them when you get them yourself.
If Blizzard wants to avoid Siege Tanks being too powerful against Zerg early on (which is the only thing I can think of that might hold them back from buffing the unit), they can roll it in a generic damage upgrade like in WoL campaign with Maelstrom Rounds. Just add a flat damage upgrade to like 80 on the primary target and 50 splash, but only available with an Armory completed. Tanks, Factories, Armories and the upgrade all cost gas and time so you'd never be able to get it early with any decent number of Tanks.
The problem with that is that it breaks dynamics of TvT rewarding turtling tanks and never pushing. In the current TvT you can reasonably thinks of taking a first volley to get a great position and push back the position of the ennemy with few losses because it is worth it. How would you do that if tanks blast everything down on the first volley.
On the contrary , in TvZ and TvP units are too fast or too strong so they can break tank lines in the blink of an eye. Tanks works in TvT so well because all units are well rounded and therefore adapted to the dmg tanks can do and position advantage it gives.
You may not like the idea of having matchup specific upgrades but we already have specific matchup units like ghosts.
Tanks is too difficult to balance because it is crap in TvZ and TvP on the other side it is on a perfect spot TvT-wise so if you apply overall redesign you loose automatically the perfect TvT-spot.
The only overall idea I liked is the double shot instead of one to break hardened shield. Aside of that I can't think of a good "overall" solution for tanks.
btw I heard people mention medivac picking sieged tanks it is the most WTF idea on the earth , it will totally destroy TvT.
I said it a while ago but i think a way to bridge the gap between Terran bio and tier 3 units is to make the viking a much more formidable ground unit. Right now it is made of Reynolds Wrap and is only utilized as a ground unit when either barely surviving an engagement or simply to add some seasoning to an already robust and dominant army. This can be done by possibly adding an armor upgrade when it transforms into a walker much like the hellbat. Vikings seem so one dimensional which is contradictory for a 2-form unit. To really buff Terran blizzard could go all out with the transformations and give us Optimus.
It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
On July 07 2014 22:24 klup wrote: It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
I don't think anyone will ever harass with vikings when marines are so much cheaper and do twice the amount of damage. In short, vikings are just way too expensive to be put in danger. It's like dropping two tanks and hoping they get some damage done and don't die.
On July 07 2014 22:24 klup wrote: It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
I don't think anyone will ever harass with vikings when marines are so much cheaper and do twice the amount of damage. In short, vikings are just way too expensive to be put in danger. It's like dropping two tanks and hoping they get some damage done and don't die.
What this guy said. It's sad but true. I'd love for Blizzard to buff tanks and nerf the stim research time, though.
Could be cool to see Tanks used as early defense against blink all-ins.
And then remove the engi requirement for turret so you can have tanks/turrets to prepare for both oracle and blink. Sounds good, right?
My proposition on buffing vikings is not for harrass but to tank with the bio forces in the mid-late game while working on tier 3 production They wouldnt be identical to hellbats because they have range. Also, the range should probably be increased slightly when they are on the ground in order to make the effective. Harrassing with them is never a good idea (unless monobattling :D) for obvious reasons.
On July 07 2014 22:24 klup wrote: It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
I don't think anyone will ever harass with vikings when marines are so much cheaper and do twice the amount of damage. In short, vikings are just way too expensive to be put in danger. It's like dropping two tanks and hoping they get some damage done and don't die.
What this guy said. It's sad but true. I'd love for Blizzard to buff tanks and nerf the stim research time, though.
Could be cool to see Tanks used as early defense against blink all-ins.
And then remove the engi requirement for turret so you can have tanks/turrets to prepare for both oracle and blink. Sounds good, right?
transforming vikings quickly can have some impact on TvP imo especially on those weird moment when you make your viking land and they are so clumsy by the time they finally land the battle is over.
On July 07 2014 22:24 klup wrote: It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
In BW it is Goliath, u dont even need to transform . . . somehow the Dominion come up with this new mech that is more expensive and worse than the one that is replacing . .
On July 07 2014 22:24 klup wrote: It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
In BW it is Goliath, u dont even need to transform . . . somehow the Dominion come up with this new mech that is more expensive and worse than the one that is replacing . .
their tanks also got worse whilst at the same time costing more =þ
On July 07 2014 22:24 klup wrote: It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
In BW it is Goliath, u dont even need to transform . . . somehow the Dominion come up with this new mech that is more expensive and worse than the one that is replacing . .
their tanks also got worse whilst at the same time costing more =þ
Maybe it is due to corruptions in the private Weapon R&D sectors . . . even though the entire race is facing imminent extinction, money makes the world go round.
On July 07 2014 22:24 klup wrote: It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
In BW it is Goliath, u dont even need to transform . . . somehow the Dominion come up with this new mech that is more expensive and worse than the one that is replacing . .
their tanks also got worse whilst at the same time costing more =þ
Terran Dominion are absolute newbs. They even gave up science vessal which were the some of the answer for lategame non-mirror matches for that scrappy expensive snowbally ravens.
The good news is these dominions somehow made bio playable.
On July 07 2014 22:24 klup wrote: It was proposed not long time ago to reduce drastically the transformation time of vikings allowing them to be more effective as a polyvalent unit. It would also make them more interesting for harass purpose.
In BW it is Goliath, u dont even need to transform . . . somehow the Dominion come up with this new mech that is more expensive and worse than the one that is replacing . .
their tanks also got worse whilst at the same time costing more =þ
Terran Dominion are absolute newbs. They even gave up science vessal which were the some of the answer for lategame non-mirror matches for that scrappy expensive snowbally ravens.
The good news is these dominions somehow made bio playable.
Yes, alot new things do not make sense . . .I missed the old Confederate faction . I missed old times.
Recently I thought to myself One of the problems of mech (and sc2) is surely the combining and removing of upgrades. I remember when the game shipped, we had khaldaryn amulet, protoss had voidray speed, terran had 5 more upgrades too.
The beauty of upgrades is that they force players along a certain path. That makes the game more predictable. If the tank has a 150/150 research requirement, they can in turn be a little stronger once upgraded.
Think about it, this makes hybrid styles like tank marine slightly more difficult to play, which honestly just because its been around forever, isnt neccasarily a good thing. It would be much better if mech units filled the role of protecting the tank.
Bio, Mech, Air - They all have advantages and disadvantages. Imagine for a second there were no upgrades in the game, if you allow players to combine the best unit combination for X the game will be extremely boring.
It should, of course, be possible to techswitch, but it should be a decision.
So my proposal would be, add another upgrade. Please blizzard, dont be scared to break the meta, try some changes that will cause imbalances but just implement them.
I've been seeing a lot of these threads lately but I've never really bothered to weigh in on the conversation. I was a casual protoss player in WOL around diamond/plat league (when protoss was actually considered 'weak') so by no means am I very good. But I am an avid spectator of HOTS and I have noticed some trends. I think that a lot of the problems of TvX actually can be solved by relatively simple tweaks to race mechanics rather than simply buffing x unit by y amount versus z unit type or making any and every unit in the game move faster. The main problems I see with terran is that they have the weakest production lategame, have problems tech switching and producing simultaneously, and have the weakest static defenses/defensive options so they are forced to be aggressive early game. I would like to throw in these ideas for consideration.
I. Macro Ideas
1) I agree with everyone that terran needs the tech lab/reactor combination add on from the WOL campaign; make it unlocked by the armory. Say either the tech lab or reactor can be upgraded for like 50/50 with a 30 second upgrade time.
Why: it seems like much of terran's problems is that they are pigeon-holed into a strategy that they can't transition out of. Transitioning out of standard 4M openers are difficult because adding on starports and factories is expensive. Even when you have those factories or starports you pretty much have to keep them dedicated to constant medivac/viking or mine/hellion production and lose out on banshee, ravens, and bcs, and tanks and thors. It also makes it difficult to add in ghosts for bio play since you need to constantly produce marines and marauders. This new add on would allow terran to build, for example, a raven and a viking or a raven and a medivac from the same starport which would give new flexibility of transitions and unit composition for terran so that banshee and tank openings aren't as gimmicky. Also, lets face it, every terran tech option uses the armory so its not like terran are going out of their way.
2) Nerf protoss warpgate so that the farther a pylon is from a nexus the longer the warp-in time takes. For example, add .1 second on warp in time for every 10 units a pylon is away from a nexus. Warp prism warps are unaffected.
Why: Protoss production is already superior to terran's with chronoboost and warpgate, but it should not be equally powerful offensively and defensively. And lets face it, terran scouting, especially mid-late game just isn't the best and you can't catch every single pylon on the map. This would encourage and reward the skills of players who are using warp prism harass but make warping in zealot trains lategame and a-clicking more difficult. I think this change would be positive for all PvX match ups. Also, it would encourage use of warp prisms as static reinforcement points across the map, which is something that no one really uses. Lorewise it also makes sense: the nexus is the heart of the psionic matrix so protoss should be weaker away from them, which is the whole reason why the protoss created warp prisms in the first place.
3) Give zerg hatcheries a larvae cap and/or larva decay. For example, a hatchery can only have a maximum of 15 larvae and/or make it so that a larvae only survives for 5 minutes after it was spawned.
Why: In SC:BW zerg larvae was limited by hatcheries which encouraged good macro play/macro hatches. Instead SC2 zerg has this "oh crap my army died in a really bad trade, oh well let me just make 75 zerglings and counter attack him". At the highest level of play this change would reward zergs with good macro and reward creative uses of hatcheries, i.e. to make walls for hellion/zealot runbys or spread creep. In SC:BW a hatch was 300 minerals but in SC2 for 2 supply and 150 minerals a queen can serve as a mobile macro hatchery. Not only does this net the zerg 150 minerals but also encourages mass queen styles which allow the zerg to just turtle early game. IMO zerg shouldn't have defensive units that contribute to their economy simultaneously: something about the passivity of early zerg should be tweaked a little. This change would have little effect on the early part of the game since zerg would still make 4-6 queens and larvae are only an unused resource when zerg maxes out on 3-4 bases anyway. Also, the extra 150 minerals wouldn't hurt zerg too much in long games but would make it so that zerg have to use their minerals more wisely instead of having a 4k mineral bank on 5 bases with 200 larvae and 20 swarm hosts.
II. Defensive options
1) Do something about the nexus cannon. This topic has been beaten to death so I'm not going to say anything on this point.
2) Given terran stronger vs ground static defense options, precisely the flame turret from the campaign, unlocked by engineering bay and have it cost 100/50 or something.
Why: this sounds counter-intuitive since the race with bunkers, siege tanks, planetary fortresses, and only ranged units already has some of the most powerful turtling mechanisms, but if you look at it terran really isn't that strong against warp prism/medivac/overlord drops lategame. Since terran's production is already weak, a well-placed drop in a production line can cause crippling damage which is harder for terran to recover from than the other races. Zerg centralized production allows for quick defenses and the protoss can defend anywhere anytime. Furthermore, past early game bunkers/widow mines aren't good at defending because they take up too much supply to be effective.
Also, terran missile turrets don't attack ground units. Photon cannons are already more cost efficient, and zerg static defenses are lategame supply sinks and can movie. Planetary forces are great for defending a risky third or a fourth base, but when that 4 medivac doom drop happens in your main a PF just isn't very useful. Also, the threat of drops lategame can be enough to discourage terran from moving out, which leads to more turtling and boring play.
3) Make spores and spine crawlers only able to relocate a limited number of times.
Why: zerg defenses are already strong, cheap, and lategame are a supply sink when your maxing out your army. Much of the strength of swarm host/broodlord/infestor/viper play is the fact that you can pick up and move your forest of spine crawlers whenever you want to. I don't think its good game design for something that can be used equally offensively and defensively. I think having a limit of where a spine/spore crawler can only move once or twice would still allow zergs to defend themselves properly in the early-mid game but weaken their ability to force 75 minute long split map situations.
im quitting this. Like, i have 15 mines, the zerg player has no overseer and walks right into it in one ball, when it starts hitting him he doesnt bother to split them even in half and 30% die, I split all my stuff and still banes will rape me if the mutas wont. This is so far from fun it's not even redicioulus. He can't hold the push? no problem, just remass lings on one base. I can't hold the push? The muta will kill every infrastructure unit and snipe all units coming out. Build a turret? will req 20 scvs repairing each other, build a spore? requires nothing and will keep the drone alive. This is so fair!
Haha yeah - I mean I think it's a really difficult thing to do for anyone, even pros.
You have to be able to separate the games that you play if you aren't a top 5% player (even among pros).
I am a casual Terran player (played a lot more WOL) have high masters MMR on NA and I recognize that I should not ever use any games that I play as examples or citing for balance. I have to imagine for lower level pros (especially struggling pros without any or few results) that it has to be even that much more difficult to actually acknowledge that your games aren't really the ones that should be used in diagnosing imbalance or breaking down optimally played match-ups. Obviously a guy like Nerchio feels like "How can I be using an over-powered race if I can never get passed ro16 wcs_eu?" Same can be said for most of the players interviewed.
It's one thing if you find replays that you break-down and analyze 0 mistakes were made etc..but to use your general experience in playing as concept for balance if you aren't in the top 20 players of your race is kind of silly. I really wish Blizzard would create a database similar to the one that DWF did of proleague games, GSL games and cull out "optimally" played games and analyze those, display the results for the community.
That's why I really agree with what Flash said.. players opinions should never really matter, it's the tournament results that will dictate the balance.. even top 1% players aren't going to be honest in most cases and say they are at an unfair advantage - a nerf means a chance at substantially less $$ for them.
Almost means threads like this, although interesting read, really create more misinformation in my opinion.
On July 08 2014 01:33 DomeGetta wrote: Haha yeah - I mean I think it's a really difficult thing to do for anyone, even pros.
You have to be able to separate the games that you play if you aren't a top 5% player (even among pros).
I am a casual Terran player (played a lot more WOL) have high masters MMR on NA and I recognize that I should not ever use any games that I play as examples or citing for balance. I have to imagine for lower level pros (especially struggling pros without any or few results) that it has to be even that much more difficult to actually acknowledge that your games aren't really the ones that should be used in diagnosing imbalance or breaking down optimally played match-ups. Obviously a guy like Nerchio feels like "How can I be using an over-powered race if I can never get passed ro16 wcs_eu?" Same can be said for most of the players interviewed.
It's one thing if you find replays that you break-down and analyze 0 mistakes were made etc..but to use your general experience in playing as concept for balance if you aren't in the top 20 players of your race is kind of silly. I really wish Blizzard would create a database similar to the one that DWF did of proleague games, GSL games and cull out "optimally" played games and analyze those, display the results for the community.
That's why I really agree with what Flash said.. players opinions should never really matter, it's the tournament results that will dictate the balance.. even top 1% players aren't going to be honest in most cases and say they are at an unfair advantage - a nerf means a chance at substantially less $$ for them.
Almost means threads like this, although interesting read, really create more misinformation in my opinion.
Ah, but you see, it's not whether they think there's a problem or not, it's what they say the problem is that makes it interesting.
On July 08 2014 01:33 DomeGetta wrote: Haha yeah - I mean I think it's a really difficult thing to do for anyone, even pros.
You have to be able to separate the games that you play if you aren't a top 5% player (even among pros).
I am a casual Terran player (played a lot more WOL) have high masters MMR on NA and I recognize that I should not ever use any games that I play as examples or citing for balance. I have to imagine for lower level pros (especially struggling pros without any or few results) that it has to be even that much more difficult to actually acknowledge that your games aren't really the ones that should be used in diagnosing imbalance or breaking down optimally played match-ups. Obviously a guy like Nerchio feels like "How can I be using an over-powered race if I can never get passed ro16 wcs_eu?" Same can be said for most of the players interviewed.
It's one thing if you find replays that you break-down and analyze 0 mistakes were made etc..but to use your general experience in playing as concept for balance if you aren't in the top 20 players of your race is kind of silly. I really wish Blizzard would create a database similar to the one that DWF did of proleague games, GSL games and cull out "optimally" played games and analyze those, display the results for the community.
That's why I really agree with what Flash said.. players opinions should never really matter, it's the tournament results that will dictate the balance.. even top 1% players aren't going to be honest in most cases and say they are at an unfair advantage - a nerf means a chance at substantially less $$ for them.
Almost means threads like this, although interesting read, really create more misinformation in my opinion.
Ah, but you see, it's not whether they think there's a problem or not, it's what they say the problem is that makes it interesting.
Haha yeah I can agree with that.. I liked reading it at any rate.. it's just you have to take it with a grain of salt..almost to the point where you can convince yourself that most are being utterly dishonest.. think about it - if your livelihood relied on the strength of the race that you played - would you ever honestly be able to say "yes, imba - nerf pls". I have to imagine no.. even the most dignified individual would find a way to lie to himself lolol -
On July 06 2014 08:13 WonDeRSC wrote: I liked Xeno's answers. I think that finding a solution for mass banes and mass muta is the correct answer. I also like Qxc's suggestion to make creep recede faster. This will allow a more long lasting effect of properly pushing creep back. I don't know how tanks will affect TvZ, but I really hope for no mech buffs in TvT.
I remember there was a Blizzard test map to play around with creep tumor energy cost from the queen to help in reducing creep spread. I think it was actually at the end of WoL with the horrible state of Terran (go figure we are in the same place again). I don't know why they didn't implement it.
Mvp won sLivko, Vortix and Nerchio so all was fine.
Lol, that makes sense. One Terran to balance the entire game around. Why do I feel Taeja and Maru are being used as the scapegoats for opposing races to say, "See they beat a P and Z. It can be done!" Ya, too bad you only need 10,000 apm to do it.
Seriously. Not to mention MVP is/was a god of the game, and those three zergs are absolutely nobody in comparison.
On July 06 2014 08:13 WonDeRSC wrote: I liked Xeno's answers. I think that finding a solution for mass banes and mass muta is the correct answer. I also like Qxc's suggestion to make creep recede faster. This will allow a more long lasting effect of properly pushing creep back. I don't know how tanks will affect TvZ, but I really hope for no mech buffs in TvT.
I remember there was a Blizzard test map to play around with creep tumor energy cost from the queen to help in reducing creep spread. I think it was actually at the end of WoL with the horrible state of Terran (go figure we are in the same place again). I don't know why they didn't implement it.
Mvp won sLivko, Vortix and Nerchio so all was fine.
Lol, that makes sense. One Terran to balance the entire game around. Why do I feel Taeja and Maru are being used as the scapegoats for opposing races to say, "See they beat a P and Z. It can be done!" Ya, too bad you only need 10,000 apm to do it.
Seriously. Not to mention MVP is/was a god of the game, and those three zergs are absolutely nobody in comparison.
That's one thing I go back and forth on a lot when thinking about RTS.. Should degree of difficulty be considered when solving for balance?
It makes the assumptions that you have to declare different depending on the answer..
Like assuming both races are being played 100% perfectly - you have balance 1 equation.
Assuming that both races are being played 98% perfectly - you have balance 2 equation etc.
If the argument is that Terran is balanced because it has the highest skill ceiling it should then probably be solved for how often that skill ceiling is reached during top professional games.. because SC2 is typically played in tournaments or league formats professionally you'd even have to go as far as saying how often that skill ceiling is reached and maintained for an entire tournament run.
This, in my opinion is what is mostly responsible for the lack of results for Terran players (currently) and lack of results for foreign Terran players historically. Even if you can play to the top of the skill ceiling for Terran (which less than 10% of even top Koreans do consistently) can you do it for the duration of a series and then a full tournament without 1 misstep. This is something you rarely see and as such the poor results follow. We've seen Taeja do it.. we've seen Maru do it.. we've seen Innovation do it.. but we really haven't seen any Terran player do it at the highest level of play (WCS_KR - sorry folks ;( ) consistently (Last Terran GSL code S winner - Maru 2013 - season 2).
I think this sort of thing is extremely hard to fix - because you teeter on the edge of giving those players an imbalanced advantage by buffing too much and on the opposite end you have the situation now where even those players aren't able to show any consistent results (and please don't go on about dreamhack and HSC for Taeja, yes he was very impressive but in neither tournament was there stiff competition).
So, in conclusion I think that degree of difficulty has to be considered in balance when the skill ceiling for a particular race is actually unobtainable for a stretch of time long enough to win a tournament. Presently we are in a state where that skill ceiling isn't high enough with the strength of the units and compositions available. This can be fixed but it most likely will involve not only a buff for Terran, but some mechanic that will allow the other races to raise their own skill ceilings to compensate.
I think they should focus more on just adjusting some numbers here and there to try and achieve 50/50 win rate but I really hope they take a look at some fundamental changes for LotV.
On July 06 2014 08:13 WonDeRSC wrote: I liked Xeno's answers. I think that finding a solution for mass banes and mass muta is the correct answer. I also like Qxc's suggestion to make creep recede faster. This will allow a more long lasting effect of properly pushing creep back. I don't know how tanks will affect TvZ, but I really hope for no mech buffs in TvT.
I remember there was a Blizzard test map to play around with creep tumor energy cost from the queen to help in reducing creep spread. I think it was actually at the end of WoL with the horrible state of Terran (go figure we are in the same place again). I don't know why they didn't implement it.
Mvp won sLivko, Vortix and Nerchio so all was fine.
Lol, that makes sense. One Terran to balance the entire game around. Why do I feel Taeja and Maru are being used as the scapegoats for opposing races to say, "See they beat a P and Z. It can be done!" Ya, too bad you only need 10,000 apm to do it.
Seriously. Not to mention MVP is/was a god of the game, and those three zergs are absolutely nobody in comparison.
That's one thing I go back and forth on a lot when thinking about RTS.. Should degree of difficulty be considered when solving for balance?
It makes the assumptions that you have to declare different depending on the answer..
Like assuming both races are being played 100% perfectly - you have balance 1 equation.
Assuming that both races are being played 98% perfectly - you have balance 2 equation etc.
If the argument is that Terran is balanced because it has the highest skill ceiling it should then probably be solved for how often that skill ceiling is reached during top professional games.. because SC2 is typically played in tournaments or league formats professionally you'd even have to go as far as saying how often that skill ceiling is reached and maintained for an entire tournament run.
This, in my opinion is what is mostly responsible for the lack of results for Terran players (currently) and lack of results for foreign Terran players historically. Even if you can play to the top of the skill ceiling for Terran (which less than 10% of even top Koreans do consistently) can you do it for the duration of a series and then a full tournament without 1 misstep. This is something you rarely see and as such the poor results follow. We've seen Taeja do it.. we've seen Maru do it.. we've seen Innovation do it.. but we really haven't seen any Terran player do it at the highest level of play (WCS_KR - sorry folks ;( ) consistently (Last Terran GSL code S winner - Maru 2013 - season 2).
I think this sort of thing is extremely hard to fix - because you teeter on the edge of giving those players an imbalanced advantage by buffing too much and on the opposite end you have the situation now where even those players aren't able to show any consistent results (and please don't go on about dreamhack and HSC for Taeja, yes he was very impressive but in neither tournament was there stiff competition).
So, in conclusion I think that degree of difficulty has to be considered in balance when the skill ceiling for a particular race is actually unobtainable for a stretch of time long enough to win a tournament. Presently we are in a state where that skill ceiling isn't high enough with the strength of the units and compositions available. This can be fixed but it most likely will involve not only a buff for Terran, but some mechanic that will allow the other races to raise their own skill ceilings to compensate.
I kind of agree and disagree with you. Right now I believe the degree off difficulty is indeed a factor for terrans performance, but I think that, instead of taking it into account and tackling it head on, the other races should be redesigned so that they require more input to be successful and the level of their success scales smoothly with the amount of effort put in.
Say, we compare the battle micro of both terran and protoss. Protoss has a lot more automation in their micro and their units are by default a lot more efficient with limited input. Zealots automatically charge, Colossus automatically splash and are easy to position due to unitwalking, FF is fire and forget spell, Guardian Shield is fire and forget, Storm is fire and forget, the only action that requires slightly more input is blinking the stalkers and target firing vikings.
On the terran side of things the bio needs to constantly be re positioned trough kiting, splitting and dodging to avoid taking massive damage and it preferably needs to maintain its arc at all times. The vikings must be positioned as to not be above the bio (to prevent a super efficient storm), they need to target fire the colossus and occasionally also re positioned to avoid too much damage. The ghosts need to be positioned in such a way as to not impede the position of the rest of the army, they must be close enough to EMP the templars and army but secure enough to retreat them in order to survive. All of these actions are continuous in their nature and must be executed several times in rapid and correct order. The discrepancy is massive and it can often feels extremely unfair for the terran to lose one of these engagements when he has put so much effort into it.
If you say, remove some of those automations and redesign some units to require more micro and to scale with micro, then some of the battles wouldn't be as one sided as they are now (they would be in the beginning though for the race that has to learn to micro) and they would feel a lot more fair. Examples are maybe removing autocast on charge, make FF and GS require more input to be efficient, like GS only blocking a limited amount of total damage for only 1-2 seconds after which it had to be refreshed, colossus no longer having unit and terrain walk and doing friendly fire. A lot of those would go a long, long way to making fights a lot more even.
I don't think the game should be balanced around winrates. Clearly if there are never Terrans in any events and they never win any tournaments then it's an issue. When you balance around win rates, you have really good Terrans beating mediocre P and Z because the mediocre Terrans couldn't cut it. So win rates are inflated because of skill differential.
Re: destructicon:
I think you are entirely missing the point of why T has trouble with P at the professional level. It's not because the armies are hard to control. It's because the early game is hard for Terran and P can be pretty greedy while at the same time threatening huge economic damage with their openings if unscouted (Oracles). So T is forced to play on the back foot for a while during which P can get ahead economically if they play it out correctly.
Any pro gamer worth his salt can kite units and make a concave.
On July 08 2014 02:33 DinoMight wrote: Re: destructicon:
I think you are entirely missing the point of why T has trouble with P at the professional level. It's not because the armies are hard to control. It's because the early game is hard for Terran and P can be pretty greedy while at the same time threatening huge economic damage with their openings if unscouted (Oracles). So T is forced to play on the back foot for a while during which P can get ahead economically if they play it out correctly.
Any pro gamer worth his salt can kite units and make a concave.
I disagree. Late game TvP the T needs much more army management and better control than the Protoss player.
Splitting against storms is hard, spreading vikings and targeting on colossi is hard. Dealing with the warp prism harass in your base is hard too while the main battle is going on.
Even when a Terran does a drop, they have to babysit the drop to maximize its damage, while a P who warps in 8 zealots in a T's main with a warp prism can just forget about it, and let the Zealots automatically do some work. You can eventually go back to it when you see the blip on the minimap that it's being attacked, but zealots are pretty tanky and don't have to be babysat instantly.
The hardest thing in PvT battles imo is high templar positioning.
If you think about many pro PvT games, the Immortals aren't even targeting down marauders individually, they're on A-move, and spend a lot of time attacking marines. Whereas a T will generally target fire immortals and other high-priority units down with their bio.
I liked some of the changes that philosophosaurusrex proposed, especially with the larva cap on each hatchery. Z should have to commit more resources to making more macro hatches late game to increase overall larva count. Z's are usually the ones banking the most resources in any non-mirror matchup they play. Terran and P both have to devote resources to more production facilities to ensure a fast remax. Z just has to spend APM injecting when they're maxxed out to bank something like 80 larva over 4 bases. That could technically be 80 mutalisks (obviously i'm exaggerating, 80 mutas would be 160supply, which is crazy). If a Terran wanted to make 80 vikings at a time, they'd need 40 starports with reactors on it....
On July 07 2014 09:07 SC2John wrote: There has never been any real doubt, I think, as to the efficacy of Terran's mid game, which is, by far stronger than the other races. That said, IN YOUR ARTICLE, you specifically talk about Terran coming into the late game behind the other races, which was a direct result of early game invulnerability combined with a fair amount of mid game invulnerability (fueled in part bu the early game.
Then how can Zerg and Protoss have "a fair amount of midgame invulnerability" if Terran's midgame is "far stronger than the other races"? People confuse several concepts. Having the initiative and being the aggressor doesn't mean you have the advantage per se. Terran winning the majority of their TvP games between 10 and 16 minutes means midgame is their strongest phase, but it doesn't mean it's as strong as it should be.
The article did talk about Terran midgame issues in several places:
Combined with Zerg's refined anti-4M play, the effects of the Mine nerf were flagrant. Terrans quickly lost their ability to pressure efficiently enough in midgame; keeping the creep in check and preventing Zerg from saturating too quickly his fourth was a critical point in ensuring that Terran doesn't get overwhelmed by the huge amount of units a 80+ Drone economy can produce. As a result of this slackened pressure, the original sin of the Queen patch, i.e. Zerg's development (creep, economy, tech) getting out of hand, resurfaced anew.
To capitalize on Terran's newfound lack of a powerful AoE weapon, Zergs started morphing incredibly high amount of Banelings. The idea is simple: since Terrans can no longer get rid of enough banes via Mine detonations, all Marines are slaughtered and mutas reign supreme at the end of the engagement. This possibility was also aided by the fact Terran could no longer trade enough in midgame, so Zerg no longer needs to pour as much gas into Baneling replenishment, allowing the accumulation and eventual advantage.
TvP
Yet what happens in HotS? Terran is progressively robbed of all aggressive early game options, which means Protoss enters midgame (and by extension lategame) in better shape than ever.
Protoss has so little to fear in the first 10 minutes that they can tech way too agressively in complete impunity: what they earned in superior builds far outclasses what remains of Terran's new offensive potential.
Due to this, and despite the fact Medivacs can often land troops by brute force with Boost, top Protoss are barely droppable: sOs vs Bomber, Akilon Wastes, Blizzcon; Maru vs herO, Outboxer, Proleague; Polt vs Rain, Frost, IEM Cologne; Bogus vs Zest, King Sejong, Code S RO16 or Maru vs Classic, King Sejong, Code S RO4 show Terran's risky attempts repeatedly fail to seriously dent the brick wall.
This is not good news for Terran: if midgame timings/all-ins get solved, then it means the race has to play even closer to lategame.
Regarding midgame, Terran issues vs Zerg and Protoss don't stem from the same root. Against Zerg, Terran has no troubles entering midgame on an even foot; the problem is simply that their armies don't have the strength they should have because Mines are too weak. Against Protoss going certain builds, Terran is systematically behind; not because Terran builds lack power per se but because Protoss' ones are allowed to be too ambitious (mainly in tech, but also partly in economy) compared with what they should be. The result is a bolted midgame.
I do not disagree that mines probably need to go back to their original power. However, there is no doubt of the power of MMM and mines in the mid game in all matchups. Personally, I think the best place for Blizzard to start is the late game, where they can literally buff ONE thing and not have it affect the entire matchup. The history of Terran is littered with early and mid game options that, combined with Terran's already strong mid game, made Terran seem invulnerable, therefore leading to a swift blow with the nerf hammer. Starting in the late game will allow Terrans, even Terrans who are behind from the early and mid game, to play more fairly in the Zerg and Protoss dominated late games.
If that isn't enough, then perhaps a buff to the early/mid game can get going. But a buff to the medivac? Why? What's the purpose of buffing Terrans where they're already strong? If you're going to buff a mid game unit, I would much rather just see a mine buff.
I voted against the Medivac change as explained here. Blizzard's past blunders are not an argument to deny needed changes to early and midgame. People are deluded if they think one can magically fix "lategame" without first addressing the very root of the issues. That's putting the cart before the horse. For instance, TvP cannot be relanced without Protoss conceding a part of his HotS gas loot (directly with an Overcharge nerf, or indirectly with stim recovering its original search time so the threat of earlier timings forces caution from Protoss, who would be forced to reallocate some resources currently spent on tech to gates/units). No amount of Thor/Battlecruiser buff would change that.
On July 08 2014 03:35 TheDwf wrote: I voted against the Medivac change as explained here. Blizzard's past blunders are not an argument to deny needed changes to early and midgame. People are deluded if they think one can magically fix "lategame" without first addressing the very root of the issues. That's putting the cart before the horse. For instance, TvP cannot be relanced without Protoss conceding a part of his HotS gas loot (directly with an Overcharge nerf, or indirectly with stim recovering its original search time so the threat of earlier timings forces caution from Protoss, who would be forced to reallocate some resources currently spent on tech to gates/units). No amount of Thor/Battlecruiser buff would change that.
This very thing is what confounds me about people asking for mech buffs to solve the issue. Making Terran late-game units OP isn't a solution, it's masking the root of the issue and creating additional potential problems in the late game (and especially TvT issues). Fixing Terran's early game to allow for aggression and greed punishment again has a huge snowball effect on the way the rest of the game plays. It's best to address that first and then see how the game changes accordingly before modifying late game units.
One community suggestion I sincerely hope never sees fruition is another tank buff. Pure bio play in TvT is practically extinct as it is; there's no reason to further diminish bio-mech as well. Furthermore, if people want to see tanks in TvZ again, they should look at the mutalisk. Muta clouds sniping away tanks was already a dynamic concept in WoL, but the muta buffs make it ridiculous for Terran to deal with. The muta buffs are also a problem in every single match up, prompting alternative buffs for all three races (widow mines strike air, phoenix range, spore crawler vs bio). Frankly, if they reverted all that band-aid junk and/or kept but nerfed widow mine AA, they'd solve a lot of other problems in the game.
On July 08 2014 02:33 DinoMight wrote: Re: destructicon:
I think you are entirely missing the point of why T has trouble with P at the professional level. It's not because the armies are hard to control. It's because the early game is hard for Terran and P can be pretty greedy while at the same time threatening huge economic damage with their openings if unscouted (Oracles). So T is forced to play on the back foot for a while during which P can get ahead economically if they play it out correctly.
Any pro gamer worth his salt can kite units and make a concave.
I disagree. Late game TvP the T needs much more army management and better control than the Protoss player.
Splitting against storms is hard, spreading vikings and targeting on colossi is hard. Dealing with the warp prism harass in your base is hard too while the main battle is going on.
Even when a Terran does a drop, they have to babysit the drop to maximize its damage, while a P who warps in 8 zealots in a T's main with a warp prism can just forget about it, and let the Zealots automatically do some work. You can eventually go back to it when you see the blip on the minimap that it's being attacked, but zealots are pretty tanky and don't have to be babysat instantly.
The hardest thing in PvT battles imo is high templar positioning.
If you think about many pro PvT games, the Immortals aren't even targeting down marauders individually, they're on A-move, and spend a lot of time attacking marines. Whereas a T will generally target fire immortals and other high-priority units down with their bio. I liked some of the changes that philosophosaurusrex proposed, especially with the larva cap on each hatchery. Z should have to commit more resources to making more macro hatches late game to increase overall larva count. Z's are usually the ones banking the most resources in any non-mirror matchup they play. Terran and P both have to devote resources to more production facilities to ensure a fast remax. Z just has to spend APM injecting when they're maxxed out to bank something like 80 larva over 4 bases. That could technically be 80 mutalisks (obviously i'm exaggerating, 80 mutas would be 160supply, which is crazy). If a Terran wanted to make 80 vikings at a time, they'd need 40 starports with reactors on it....
Yah and just to clarify - I'm not talking about only micro. Micro in Tvp and Tvz battles is definitely a higher degree of difficultly but it's not the only factor in terms of skill ceiling in my opinion.. based on the current meta and standard unit compositions (excluding mech - which this does not apply to) - you really can't just take a maxed army as Terran and engage a maxed Zerg or Protoss (if zerg chases you off of creep you can, if protoss walks through a choke you can - sometimes). Because of the fact that Terran really doesn't have a tier 3 to switch to (or even a tier 2 for that matter) you also can't just play the wait game... you have no army that will compete with maxed colo/templar/tempest/archon/zealot especially when factoring in the instant remax mechanic. Same goes for Ultra/Broodlord/Infestor/Bane with as many larva as they will have to remax (unless you some how manage to transition off of bio into mass raven which should be impossible). Based on this in both match-ups the Terran has to take the initiative through creative splitting of his army looking for weak-points to clear creep (or bases) while still defending and expanding.
So now the Terran is in a position where he not only has to out-micro his opponent substantially to stand a chance (or hope he a moves off creep / hope he clumps all his templar in range of ghost etc) but also has to figure out a way to inflict critical economic or infrastructural damage while not losing his army and defending counter attacks. Mass muta / warp prism / proxy pylons make this even more difficult. A single misstep in terms of micro in one engagment / multitask / even macro and the game is thrown. It is a lot harder to throw a game as Zerg vs T (don't fight off creep) or Protoss vs T (don't walk through chokes presplit templar).
All this would be fine (not really fine in my opinion as it would really make turtling the best option for all 3 races and 2 hr long games the norm) if into the late game all 3 races had armies that could trade cost effectively with the others..the problem for T now is that it really does not have an army that can survive to that point but also be cost effective into the late game.
It IS entirely possible for Terran to have the strongest mid-game, and weakest late-game.. And buffing it's superiority at the 11 minute mark over both others is NOT the answer..
It is so biased that is completely missing the target, as well as only favouring those who can "profit" the most..
Terran's problem is that in it's non-mirrors there's a "clock".. And if it ticks out - it's done.. You can't play whole game long while worrying about a "tick clock", let the pros do that cause they can, but let the others "survive" after a mistake as long as at the attempt of fixing they're not too slow..
THAT's the problem, not the winrates, nor the "opponents not enough vulnerable", nor the game-design, nor the units (except Raven, Tempest, Swarmhost )..
But - THE POINT IS - the less "clocks or lose" "situations" (not to be mistaken with TIMINGS - timings are DEFENDABLE - and if you defend well it is YOU who end up on top) - the better the game overall..
And I'm not talking about turtling either - i'm talking about "flexibility" in some other "form" than drops.. Right now the only flexibility "form" Terran has are drops, and nothing more.. PERIOD
To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN - and DOES with the most produced unit in the game, so that "threat" of that is ALWAYS on the run past the 10 minute mark (as opposed to other races that threat exists as long as they have the exact unit that causes those snowballs)..
So - pretty FAIR for Terran to have those "other" disadvantages TBH
BUT - The problem STILL REMAINS - should figure out something for Terran to be able to GET RID of that "doom clock".. AND - make it possible to "get rid" of it as long as the changes to the current gameplay are as MINIMAL as possible..
// Sorry for the capped words, but think those "define" the post so much
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
That didn't answer his question.
It IS entirely possible for Terran to have the strongest mid-game, and weakest late-game.. And buffing it's superiority at the 11 minute mark over both others is NOT the answer..
Here is the whole issue that everyone seems to confuse. Let's say we are at late-game TvZ. 200/200 vs 200/200 in supply. Neither player has a bank. Now, alot of people are mistakenly thinking that the game is even at this point, but it's not unusal that the value of the zerg army supply is 50% higher. Then zerg goes on to crush the terran army and people mistakenly think that it's terran late game that is way way too weak. However, that completley ignores that zerg got extremely far ahead in the midgame. There are obviously two solutions to this balance issue;
- Buff terran in midgame --> Zerg cannot reliably get such an army value lead - Buff teran in late game --> SO zerg gets ahead in army value but terran can fight very cost effective late game (it is btw worth noting that a mine-buff does both).
IF the buff is late-game only, what happens in the midgame if terran is weak? I tell you what happens: Terran sits in his base behind building wallofs while turtling to that superior army while zerg spreads creep and takes bases and nothing interesting actually happens.
The way zerg works in Sc2, terran/protoss needs to have very strong offensive tools in the midgame in order to create interesting games. Then the creep-spread functions as an important part of the defensive advantage which allows the zerg to not die in this part of game, and since the terran bio army is out on the map, the zerg player can do a lot of counterattacking in this phase of the game.
A stronger terran TvZ midgame is therefore a much more interesting way of balancing the game, and it is worth pointing out that a Mine-buff is a small buff to late-game as well. So rather than having no bank in a 200/200 vs 200/200 TvZ situation, the terran player will have a bank which allows him to army-trade in the late game, thus balances it that way. Again, not saying that tanks couldn't be buffed as well, however, a Mine-buff is by far the most likely solution to making the game more interesting while improving balance.
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
That didn't answer his question.
WHAT ? Replays ?
Come on.. As opposed you don't know it as well.. ? (sorry man, have other things to do now)
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
I sure hope those are not your top Protoss standards?
Thinking REALLY far outside the box, how about a 500/500 5 min warpgate-like upgrade that allows terran to turn all their Barracks into factories? I'm thinking like a 15-20 min post hive timing while 4th/5th is being contested that gives both players time to prepare for a much smoother transition.
Zerg player could think "ok, now I've stabilized on 4/5 bases with 3/3 and Hive tech, I need to worry about those 8 Barracks turning into 8 Factories soon"
Terran player could think "great I have a better next step when I get my 4th instead of turning 8 barracks into 12 and using the same composition I had at 7 mins.
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
I sure hope those are not your top Protoss standards?
OK - SO - why don't pros move away their workers vs Zerglings, nor sometimes even vs Zealots (unless there are like dozen of them), but run like hell as if from the devil itself when there are Marines even in the amount from a single Medivac ?
Please - don't bash.. They're legit enough.. Remember - game should be balanced for "everyone" as opposed to only Classic vs Taeja.. If those were the only ones the community cared - we'd have not been here "whining" but instead we'd play the game and feel "fair" all the time..
That "prove me wrong" mentality that you just "used" to "oppose" my point is the EXACT SAME REASON why we ALL are "bitching" on this forumnow, cause it's the exact same "mentality" that David Kim himself has (or at least we perceive he has)
And YES - I am looking for a game/moment of a game that that happens so you'd "find out what you already know" (It will take time), but I wonder if it would cause the "you were right" "fine".. Terrans stayed blind to that for like ages now, why should one of just "admit" that now
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
The time it takes to fully unload a medivac full of marines by itself exceeds your numbers, let alone actually doing a full amount of damage. Yet here you are talking about bias...
But yes, the basic idea of multi-pronged aggression is to do damage in at least one area while your opponent is distracted somewhere else. Zergling/baneling/zealot runbys perform the same kind of role. You don't necessarily have to drop to catch an opponent off guard and rampage their economy, either. Perhaps you missed HyuN vs. Polt this weekend, where HyuN kept decimating Polt's third base economy in a matter of seconds on Frost with a few banelings while Polt was distracted elsewhere -- multiple times.
EDIT:
On July 08 2014 04:59 VArsovskiSC wrote: OK - SO - why don't pros move away their workers vs Zerglings, nor sometimes even vs Zealots (unless there are like dozen of them), but run like hell as if from the devil itself when there are Marines even in the amount from a single Medivac ?
For the same reason these other players fail to do so against the medivacs when the drops actually do sick damage like you're complaining about; the players are distracted and not aware of the economic damage being done. Or are you actually implying that Terran pros don't evacuate mining against lings and zealots? That'd be a pretty silly thing to imply.
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
It IS entirely possible for Terran to have the strongest mid-game, and weakest late-game.. And buffing it's superiority at the 11 minute mark over both others is NOT the answer..
Here is the whole issue that everyone seems to confuse. Let's say we are at late-game TvZ. 200/200 vs 200/200 in supply. Neither player has a bank. Now, alot of people are mistakenly thinking that the game is even at this point, but it's not unusal that the value of the zerg army supply is 50% higher. Then zerg goes on to crush the terran army and people mistakenly think that it's terran late game that is way way too weak. However, that completley ignores that zerg got extremely far ahead in the midgame. There are obviously two solutions to this balance issue;
- Buff terran in midgame --> Zerg cannot reliably get such an army value lead - Buff teran in late game --> SO zerg gets ahead in army value but terran can fight very cost effective late game (it is btw worth noting that a mine-buff does both).
IF the buff is late-game only, what happens in the midgame if terran is weak? I tell you what happens: Terran sits in his base behind building wallofs while turtling to that superior army while zerg spreads creep and takes bases and nothing interesting actually happens.
The way zerg works in Sc2, terran/protoss needs to have very strong offensive tools in the midgame in order to create interesting games. Then the creep-spread functions as an important part of the defensive advantage which allows the zerg to not die in this part of game, and since the terran bio army is out on the map, the zerg player can do a lot of counterattacking in this phase of the game.
A stronger terran TvZ midgame is therefore a much more interesting way of balancing the game, and it is worth pointing out that a Mine-buff is a small buff to late-game as well. So rather than having no bank in a 200/200 vs 200/200 TvZ situation, the terran player will have a bank which allows him to army-trade in the late game, thus balances it that way. Again, not saying that tanks couldn't be buffed as well, however, a Mine-buff is by far the most likely solution to making the game more interesting while improving balance.
I kind of get what you are trying to say. Still the example you used is bad. Zerg will always be able to field more expensive armies. Their infrastructure is far cheaper. Terran has to spend more on buildings to build the army while zerg spends it on units directly. An extreme case would be Roach bane all ins, it's quite common to see 3x the army value for zerg in such games. The game has to be balanced around what different races can build at certain times in the game. The actual army value is not really a good indicator.
Zerg will always be able to field more expensive armies. Their infrastructure is far cheaper. Terran has to spend more on buildings to build the army while zerg spends it on units directly. An extreme case would be Roach bane all ins, it's quite common to see 3x the army value for zerg in such games. The game has to be balanced around what different races can build at certain times in the game. The actual army value is not really a good indicator.
No it's not a bad example, but extremely relevant. Already right now your seeing every terran player attempt to move out in midgame to try and kill creep. But this specific act is really challenging for terran and they often get behind in this phase of the game. I believe that if they had an easier time killing a bit of creep/trading + easier time escaping when the zerg tried to overrun the terran army (you can escape behind stronger Mines) then the whole matchup dynamic is going to be a lot better. Because from my experience the game isn't imbalanced in the late game when the zerg doesn't have an extremely large econ lead and/or no sick creep spread.
Army value is still an indicator regardless of assymetry in the game: When one race has 50% more, equal supply and neither race has a bank, then that race is pretty far ahead.
Call me crazy... but I think a large portion of the problem is Terran's advanced abilities to kill off their own troops... and Thors.
Widow Mines, Tanks and Raven Seeker Missiles all have strong AOE splash and all 3 lack precision targeting. Tanks are a little bit more manageable than the other two, but all 3 are easily dragged right onto our own units. Our own, often quite vulnerable units. It really doesn't help if we splash a significant portion of our own army.
I've seen quite a few videos when a blitz of Seeker Missiles (when they actually activate) actually landing tends to turn sour when the targeted Mutas normally, run them straight into the raven clump. Sure it took out the mutas, but it takes out the ravens and everything under them too. Widow mines are so difficult to use for this reason too, as they can easily be dragged into MMM formations and cause plenty of damage themselves.
In reality, Terran seems to be the only race with this problem, and it's frankly... stupid. Why do Baneling detonations not kill other zerg units? I accept that friendly banelings should be immune, else they would chain themselves so well as to be useless, but why are zerglings/hydras/roaches also immune? It's not as if the Zerglings aren't there simply as ablative flesh for the banelings, so having them caught up int he explosion is perfectly fine I think. (or simply remove friendly fire)
Protoss only have a single form of self-damaging splash, Psi-Storms, and they are pretty easy to avoid seeing as they are completely targeted.
Then there's Thors, like Marines and Mines, they are at best a stop-gap counter to Mutas, seeing as we can't chase them down or fight them in the air. We have to rely on our opponent making a mistake and committing them unwisely. Even then, our best response... Thors seem lackluster. With simple low skill 'magic boxing', Thors don't even take down their cost worth in mutas (providing there's at least a handful of Mutas). Even with good hits, it requires more volleys than is reasonable to kill a pack. The plash on Thor's missiles is simply to small to really be viable save for those few times when the mutas clump up. In almost all other matchups, the missiles aren't useful at all.
In TvP, Thors have almost no role what so ever, being highly vulnerable to multiple Toss units, from Immortals to Tempests or simply a few zealots.
Not really sure how to fix them though... Thors need to probably have a smaller footprint, or have similar mechanics to Colossus in that at least marines, could fit under them. They are unwieldy and though their firepower isn't bad by any means, it's hard to access and apply completely.
I've seen quite a few videos when a blitz of Seeker Missiles (when they actually activate) actually landing tends to turn sour when the targeted Mutas normally, run them straight into the raven clump. Sure it took out the mutas, but it takes out the ravens and everything under them too. Widow mines are so difficult to use for this reason too, as they can easily be dragged into MMM formations and cause plenty of damage themselves.
In reality, Terran seems to be the only race with this problem, and it's frankly... stupid.
No, this ins't stupid IMO. Actually, it's why terran is by far the best designed race in the game as it makes the game more skillbased, since Seeker Missiles/Widow Mines can be microed against. Let's try and balance the game around rewarding more micro for all races, rather than balancing the game around amoving.
I've seen quite a few videos when a blitz of Seeker Missiles (when they actually activate) actually landing tends to turn sour when the targeted Mutas normally, run them straight into the raven clump. Sure it took out the mutas, but it takes out the ravens and everything under them too. Widow mines are so difficult to use for this reason too, as they can easily be dragged into MMM formations and cause plenty of damage themselves.
In reality, Terran seems to be the only race with this problem, and it's frankly... stupid.
No, this ins't stupid IMO. Actually, it's why terran is by far the best designed race in the game as it makes the game more skillbased, since Seeker Missiles/Widow Mines can be microed against. Let's try and balance the game around rewarding more micro for all races, rather than balancing the game around amoving.
The problem is seeker missiles and widow mines aren't really skill based units. Sure there's some involved in getting seekers to activate, target selection and placement of mines, but once you fire/trigger them, they are completely out of your hands. You can't micro manage widow mines save to burrow/unburrow them. Seeker Missiles will go regardless, and if it's straight on top of your Raven ball... well, sucks to be you I guess.
I just dislike having my own stuff used against me when the other races really don't have nearly the same restrictions. There's no need to worry about banelings self-detonating my own stuff or splash from fungals or Ultralisks. Protoss only have to worry about not running their death ball into psi-storms or getting caught in their own forcefields, and since they know exactly where they are going to place them it's seems fairly easy.
Since there's no real way to add these skill checks to the Zerg and Protoss, the only way to balance them is to remove or at least reduce them vs Terran.
I've seen quite a few videos when a blitz of Seeker Missiles (when they actually activate) actually landing tends to turn sour when the targeted Mutas normally, run them straight into the raven clump. Sure it took out the mutas, but it takes out the ravens and everything under them too. Widow mines are so difficult to use for this reason too, as they can easily be dragged into MMM formations and cause plenty of damage themselves.
In reality, Terran seems to be the only race with this problem, and it's frankly... stupid.
No, this ins't stupid IMO. Actually, it's why terran is by far the best designed race in the game as it makes the game more skillbased, since Seeker Missiles/Widow Mines can be microed against. Let's try and balance the game around rewarding more micro for all races, rather than balancing the game around amoving.
That CLASSIC mistake every "only playing Terran" person does.. That "Bio"-target-fire type of play you "experience" as most rewarding, while in fact it isn't.. It is far too frustrating to deal with if Terran wins that one.. It's far too snowbally to make the whole game around that one..
That's why the Tier 2 and Tier 3 units from P and Z HAVE TO be so hard-countering to bio so they'd "block" that one..
Sorry, but your "let's balance around micro rather than a-move" - "on paper" sounds good, but is just the same sentence as "this is cool to watch".
As I said - it should be balanced about transitions and SCOUTING, not a "drop" somewhere have everything snowball.. Sure - let the pros snowball with moves only they can execute, but let us mere mortals rely on scouts and transitioning as well as unit positioning and/or army comps (and surprise - even without deathballing - it CAN be done)..
Actually, it's why terran is by far the worst designed race in the game as it makes the game more snowball, since Seeker Missiles/Widow Mines can be devastating in large numbers. Let's try and balance the game around scouting and transitioning and more "style" for all races, rather than balancing the game around drops.
The problem is seeker missiles and widow mines aren't really skill based units. Sure there's some involved in getting seekers to activate, target selection and placement of mines, but once you fire/trigger them, they are completely out of your hands. You can't micro manage widow mines save to burrow/unburrow them
I say Widow Mines are a ton harder to use optimally than Thors/Hellbats which some times substitutes/complements them in the bio army. When that is said, it could always be better. Unburrow could actually be faster so unburrow/burrow micro was more practical. More practical focus firing is also something that I have advocated alot for.
Again not saying Seeker Missile is anywhere near perfect either, but my point is that friendly fire is a very important part of making the game more micro-based and we shouldn't take that away.
That CLASSIC mistake every "only playing Terran" person does.. That "Bio"-target-fire type of play you "experience" as most rewarding, while in fact it isn't.. It is far too frustrating to deal with if Terran wins that one.. It's far too snowbally to make the whole game around that one..
That's why the Tier 2 and Tier 3 units from P and Z HAVE TO be so hard-countering to bio so they'd "block" that one..
Sorry, but your "let's balance around micro rather than a-move" - "on paper" sounds good, but is just the same sentence as "this is cool to watch".
As I said - it should be balanced about transitions and SCOUTING, not a "drop" somewhere have everything snowball.. Sure - let the pros snowball with moves only they can execute, but let us mere mortals rely on scouts and transitioning as well as unit positioning and/or army comps (and surprise - even without deathballing - it CAN be done)..
Actually, it's why terran is by far the worse designed race in the game as it makes the game more snowball, since Seeker Missiles/Widow Mines can be devastating in large numbers. Let's try and balance the game around scouting and transitioning and more "style" for all races, rather than balancing the game around drops.
Terran matchups doens't snowball at all. Protoss matchups are by far the most snowbally matchup at all. Two important factors in the determination of the snowball effects are these;
- Is the defenders advantage mechanics strong enough - Is micro a big factor in each battle so that critical mass doens't always win?
That's why TvZ isn't a snowbally matchup because there is a large defenders advantage through creep spread. No terran just wins by using one drops (at least not once you reach masters+). Instead, dropplay is the exact opposite of snowballgameplay as it makes the game more mutltaskbased/positonalbased and can slowly create larger advantages for the terran palyer or for the enemy player if he defends well.
Go watch all the most popular games in the TL thread. Notice that the games doen't invovlve transitions (typically), but instead has lots of multitasking and micro, that's simply what people wanna see. Transitions in it self isn't a good thing if the transition creates stale turtly gameplay. It seems obvious to me that you are confusing snowballing games with fast-paced multitaskbased games and while you may not like those types of game, most people do.
Lol sir, congrats, I think I found my exact opposite soulmate, lol..
Turtling doesn't happen cause of late-tech units being strong, turtling happens cause of big defender advantages - like PDD and Swarmhost, Tempest, and the likes.. Nerf those and no more Turtling happens, regardless of mobility on the map
(I guess this too is the exact opposite from your "perception", rofl), nevertheless - had quite a good debate this one..
Turtling doesn't happen cause of tech changes, turtling happens cause of big defender advantages - like PDD and Swarmhost.. Nerf those and no more Turtling happens, regardless of mobility on the map
Sry I didn't make my self clear. Defenders advantage doesn't (neccsarily) create turtling. A defenders advantage can (if properly done) reduce the snowball effect. That's the way creep spread functions.
I agree with you comments on fixing PDD/Swarm Hosts as that could make mech a ton more strong.
My point is that making transitions ins't neccasrarily fun. For instance, a terran player scouts the protoss player adding in Collosus. Now he "transitions" into Vikings.... What exactly is fun about that specific act of scouting and then transitiong (and why does this actually have anything to do with snowball-effects or micro/not rewrading amove). Aren't you going totally offtopic here?
The problem is seeker missiles and widow mines aren't really skill based units. Sure there's some involved in getting seekers to activate, target selection and placement of mines, but once you fire/trigger them, they are completely out of your hands. You can't micro manage widow mines save to burrow/unburrow them
I say Widow Mines are a ton harder to use optimally than Thors/Hellbats which some times substitutes/complements them in the bio army. When that is said, it could always be better. Unburrow could actually be faster so unburrow/burrow micro was more practical. More practical focus firing is also something that I have advocated alot for.
Again not saying Seeker Missile is anywhere near perfect either, but my point is that friendly fire is a very important part of making the game more micro-based and we shouldn't take that away.
That CLASSIC mistake every "only playing Terran" person does.. That "Bio"-target-fire type of play you "experience" as most rewarding, while in fact it isn't.. It is far too frustrating to deal with if Terran wins that one.. It's far too snowbally to make the whole game around that one..
That's why the Tier 2 and Tier 3 units from P and Z HAVE TO be so hard-countering to bio so they'd "block" that one..
Sorry, but your "let's balance around micro rather than a-move" - "on paper" sounds good, but is just the same sentence as "this is cool to watch".
As I said - it should be balanced about transitions and SCOUTING, not a "drop" somewhere have everything snowball.. Sure - let the pros snowball with moves only they can execute, but let us mere mortals rely on scouts and transitioning as well as unit positioning and/or army comps (and surprise - even without deathballing - it CAN be done)..
Actually, it's why terran is by far the worse designed race in the game as it makes the game more snowball, since Seeker Missiles/Widow Mines can be devastating in large numbers. Let's try and balance the game around scouting and transitioning and more "style" for all races, rather than balancing the game around drops.
Terran matchups doens't snowball at all. Protoss matchups are by far the most snowbally matchup at all. Two important factors in the determination of the snowball effects are these;
- Is the defenders advantage mechanics strong enough - Is micro a big factor in each battle so that critical mass doens't always win?
That's why TvZ is a very anti snowball matchup because there is a large defenders advantage through creep spread. No terran just wins by using one drops (at least not once you reach masters+). Instead, dropplay is the exact opposite of snowballgameplay as it makes the game more mutltaskbased/positonalbased and can slowly create larger advantages for the terran palyer or for the enemy player if he defends well.
Go watch all the most popular games in the TL thread. Notice that the games doen't invovlve transitions (typically), but instead has lots of multitasking and micro, that's simply what people wanna see. Transitions in it self isn't a good thing if the transition creates stale turtly gameplay. It seems obvious to me that you are confusing snowballing games with fast-paced multitaskbased games and while you may not like those types of game, most people do.
Hider I think you exaggerate both the impact and the difficulty of Terran micro. Not to say that they're not important. But the way you write about it makes it seem like simply "having twice as much stuff" doesn't matter. Obviously if you've ever watched Bomber play, that's not true. His entire style is predicated on making more stuff than his opponent and being very aggressive with his huge amounts of stuff. Granted, he does micro... but it's not the essence of Terran life that you make it seem like.
Also, I don't know what you're talking about but TvZ can DEFINITELY snowball. Tell me you haven't watched a marine Hellbat push in the last month that "won the game" without actually winning the game... When the first push does so much damage and one side gets behind economcially the game gets harder and harder to win as time passes (a snowball effect). The push forces lings and kills queens, which delays drones and larva...delayed drones and larva means fewer bases and less income, which means you don't have enough army to defend your 4th when the push comes, etc...
Currently I think the problem with TvZ is if both players play correctly and the game reaches late game, bio just has no way to deal with 60+ banelings. There isn't enough splash available to the Terran. Before the mine nerf, with good positioning and a good engagement you could still come out ahead. Now we see guys like Snute make more banelings than the Terran has marines and simply roll over them.
Think about how PvT would be if Storm all of a sudden was half the size or did 50% as much damage. Early on it might appear to be okay but in a max vs. max army situation, Protoss just wouldn't have enough splash to deal with all the bio.
Turtling doesn't happen cause of tech changes, turtling happens cause of big defender advantages - like PDD and Swarmhost.. Nerf those and no more Turtling happens, regardless of mobility on the map
Sry I didn't make my self clear. Defenders advantage doesn't (neccsarily) create turtling. A defenders advantage can (if properly done) reduce the snowball effect. That's the way creep spread functions.
I agree with you comments on fixing PDD/Swarm Hosts as that could make mech a ton more strong.
My point is that making transitions ins't neccasrarily fun. For instance, a terran player scouts the protoss player adding in Collosus. Now he "transitions" into Vikings.... What exactly is fun about that specific act of scouting and then transitiong (and why does this actually have anything to do with snowball-effects or micro/not rewrading amove). Aren't you going totally offtopic here?
Hmmm.. Not quite sure.., A good "dynamic" can come from good "pendulum" - i.e. - "chain" of changes too..
I mean Corruptor > Phoenix > Mutalisk > Voidray > Corruptor..
Now - I KNOW that Phoenix (and Mutas somewhat) ARE one of the most micro-based units in the game, but that dynamic happens not just cause of micro, but also cause of the "circular chain" I wrote about.. ALSO - for the game not to be completely stalemate (as you described) there should be at least one (or 1 per race) good anti-eco harass unit in the chain I wrote about for the stalemate not to happen, but not necessarily it being the most easily produced unit of all (such as the Marine in the case of Terran)..
Here's an example of "chain not working well" - PvP for example (TvP sky vs sky usually never happens, so can't think of a Terran example ) - it's - Phoenix (cost-wise) > Voidray > Tempest > All but Voidray, so that's why everyone makes Tempests (more like all we see are Phoenixes, but that's just because Phoenix battles are so fragile that there's no time to get Tempests, otherwise these would be the "ones") and hopes to Storm the Voidrays, rather than "transition" in and out of different Air unit types depending on what the opponent has.. Archons however are the one REAL reason that causes this almost never happen (except Grubby vs HasuObs in WCS EU - on Whirlwind, or was it Frost)
Now - whether my "premise" is right or not - can be "proved" only if both Mutalisk and Phoenix become more "boring" units (in terms of not being mobility superior to the other 2 - Voidray and Corruptor - counterparts).. I guess you might be right, but I can't be wrong too, lol, cause it's been proven/working quite right..
Also - the one change I talked about for example - just because of Tempests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Broodlord, we see the latter not at all, more like they're an extinct species, so - either Zerg needs a good anti-tempest unit to "restore the pendulum" back, OR - unbuff that ridiculous buff (that really noone knows why it's so damn +50 bonus damage high) to a more "moderate" place and we might see more BLords and BCs as well (might)
Micro is fun and good, but not essential to base upon the game-design.. Ofcourse - the truth must be somewhere in between somehow..
Hider I think you exaggerate both the impact and the difficulty of Terran micro. Not to say that they're not important. But the way you write about it makes it seem like simply "having twice as much stuff" doesn't matter. Obviously if you've ever watched Bomber play, that's not true. His entire style is predicated on making more stuff than his opponent and being very aggressive with his huge amounts of stuff. Granted, he does micro... but it's not the essence of Terran life that you make it seem like.
No this isn't true at all actually. Bomber is a very timing-oriented guy who obvioulsy is known to macro really well untill he attacks, but most importantly, controls the units incredibly well during his timings. Very few terrans can actually match that level of control. Do you play terran yourself btw? Because I don't think your in a position to talk about the mechaically requirement of playing terran if you don't play it at all/play it at a very low level.
Also, I don't know what you're talking about but TvZ can DEFINITELY snowball. Tell me you haven't watched a marine Hellbat push in the last month that "won the game" without actually winning the game... When the first push does so much damage and one side gets behind economcially the game gets harder and harder to win as time passes (a snowball effect). The push forces lings and kills queens, which delays drones and larva...delayed drones and larva means fewer bases and less income, which means you don't have enough army to defend your 4th when the push comes, etc...
Don't disagree here and that was kinda why I in the first place argued against the Hellbat buff. Check out what I actually wrote before the Hellbat buff was implemented;
My argument against buffing terran early game is how easily it could result in snowball gameplay. If you buff terran by 10% in the early game, it's not just gonna make zerg midgame weaker by 10%. Rather, it's gonna nerf zerg by something much larger than that.
Now look at how early game TvZ works. Both races can be aggressive and its very microintensive. Overall, it has a really fun dynamic which rewards skills for both players. Previously in HOTS Blizzard changed a dynamic that worked pretty well: That was when they nerfed the Widow Mine in TvZ, which hurt terran a lot in the midgame.
Simply put, when Blizzard is looking for simple/easy to fix small changes, they should be very very careful about changing the phases of the game that works well and where both races overall are pretty satifised. So touching something that impacts TvZ early game is IMO a big error.
Instead, my comment about snowballing is more related to the midgame. Both terran and zerg can lose battles without the game ending as it is difficult for terran to step into creep and end the game and zerg cannot really push into a 3base terran player offcreep with just a small/modest supply lead (but this defenders advantage would be even better with stronger Mines).
Currently I think the problem with TvZ is if both players play correctly and the game reaches late game, bio just has no way to deal with 60+ banelings. There isn't enough splash available to the Terran. Before the mine nerf, with good positioning and a good engagement you could still come out ahead. Now we see guys like Snute make more banelings than the Terran has marines and simply roll over them.
Think about how PvT would be if Storm all of a sudden was half the size or did 50% as much damage. Early on it might appear to be okay but in a max vs. max army situation, Protoss just wouldn't have enough splash to deal with all the bio.
The point that your missing here is that there are multiple ways to balance the game. Due to how the mule impacts TvP balance, terran has more stuff than the protoss player in midgame. And due how the warptech works, protoss warptech units are quite weak, thus it's absolutely a neccesity that protoss AOE is quite strong. It could ofc be balanced. E.g. the mule could be nerfed and then the game could be balanced around weaker AOE abilities for protoss. That would make toss stronger in midgame but weaker in late game.
The same concept applies to TvZ. Should the game be balanced around zerg being very cost-ineffective late game, but more army value and a bigger bank than the 4M player? Or should the game be balanced around terran being less cost-effective but having a bigger bank than the zerg player going into the late game?
The whole debate about "fundamental problem" misses the point here, because there are multiple types of solutions. But not all solutions creates interesting gameplay.
In my opinion, it would be nice if terran had two options: Mech and bio play, but bio-play simply becomes a ton more interesting when it's stronger in the midgame as it creates a much more fast-paced game. If bio is weaker in the midgame, then it's simply gonna play much more defensively. That's actually what you saw at the end of WOL where terran "bio" vs zerg was forced to turtle untill it's 2/2 timing, which created super boring games.
Reading a lot of assumptions, some VERY good ones coming from the pros, Snute (think it was him) does some intelligent thinking. I have another question that maybe has been answered but is bugging me since the Release of WoL: Is it on purpose that Blizzard doesn't want to change where the Addon is placed? It is always so annoying when I think about how I make a perfect walloff against things like Zergling/ or Roach/Baneling allin and then I spawn on the wrong side of the map and my addons are exosed or are the weak point or whatever.
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
I know there have been some responses to this already, but back to the main point, the only drop in the game that can do that kind of damage are banelings (rare) and .... wait for it.... wait for it.....
Templar drops. And they don't take 5 seconds, they take 1.5 seconds to kill all the workers. And they unload almost instantly and cast the damage instantly. And the prism can warp in 10 zealots if it so pleases afterwards. Or DTs.
I'm just growing tired of everybody trying to justify Terran suckage with "they have the best mid game"! Not sucking during a phase of the game doesn't equate to being good, at least not in my book.
What if Terran orbital command had another ability lategame? Like a type of chrono boost, reduce build time of factory/starport units... maybe requires fusion core or something? That would increase possibilites for transition to more mech based units in TvP and it would allow for quicker production of widow mines + siege tanks to handle the mass baneling, thors to handle mass muta and tanks/thors to handle mass ultra (maybe). Though I really like Hider's suggestions above, kewl buff to Siege tank, ghost and nerf to pdd (plz god)
Why not allow Viking to be able to attack land units as well as air unit without needing to transform?
And give some bonus when viking transform to land. Then it is 100% an upgrade from Goliath . .
And siege tank .. . let me think . . . . I cant tink of any..
Thor . . . it feels ridiculous to have Thor, so expensive.... to walk slow and unable to deal with Zerglings . . Give thor land splash dmg? Or increase Thor movespeed?
On July 08 2014 11:42 XiaoJoyce- wrote: Why not allow Viking to be able to attack land units as well as air unit without needing to transform?
And give some bonus when viking transform to land. Then it is 100% an upgrade from Goliath . .
And siege tank .. . let me think . . . . I cant tink of any..
Thor . . . it feels ridiculous to have Thor, so expensive.... to walk slow and unable to deal with Zerglings . . Give thor land splash dmg? Or increase Thor movespeed?
That is all I can tink of . . .
Thor get have an upgrade ability to deal reflective damage to melee attacks when researched and triggered.
Thor - more HP, less damage, and a passive ability that transfers all ranged damage targeting friendly units "behind" the Thor to the Thor. Behind meaning that the attack would have to pass through, or near, the Thor to reach its target.
Turn the Thor into a mobile fortress that Terran units can dance around. I'd love to see Medivacs carrying Thors to drop them right in front of infantry squads mid-, or right before, battle.
On July 08 2014 04:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: To make matters even worse/more-fragile - those drops are far too strong.. Zerg can't kill 30 workers in 5 seconds unless baneling drops, Protoss can't either, Terran CAN with the most produced unit in the game, so.. Not unfair for Terran to have other disadvantages TBH..
BUT - Terran needs to get rid of that "clock" somehow without changing the gameplay (or at least those being as minimal as possible) before
Care to link us all those games with Medivac drops killing 30 workers in 5 seconds?
An important thing to consider is that it's not at all the same thing if the clock starts ticking at 16' or 25'. There's also a huge difference between the disadvantage after this time being 45:55 or 20:80...
You really have to be biased to not admit that one.. Even Naniwa himself or Huk were losing10-15 like probes in a matter of seconds (say like 3-4 seconds before he realizes if "busy" in a fight) to drops
I know there have been some responses to this already, but back to the main point, the only drop in the game that can do that kind of damage are banelings (rare) and .... wait for it.... wait for it.....
Templar drops. And they don't take 5 seconds, they take 1.5 seconds to kill all the workers. And they unload almost instantly and cast the damage instantly. And the prism can warp in 10 zealots if it so pleases afterwards. Or DTs.
I'm just growing tired of everybody trying to justify Terran suckage with "they have the best mid game"! Not sucking during a phase of the game doesn't equate to being good, at least not in my book.
Alright, alright - let me "iluminate" my point here..
I didn't try to "justify" Terran suckage, instead what I was trying to say was - if you buff Terran earlier than late-game - they'll snowball.. Hence WHY I'm against that Widow-Mine buff.. THAT was my point, not justifying Terran suckage.. But while we're at it - don't the Mine-drops do the same thing, hm ?, the point is - both mines and Templars cost GAS.. While Marine drops typically/usually cost a MULE and nothing more
So yes - I'm aware of what I'm talking about, and are you really that "certain" to debate on the topic "Are bio drops strong" and say no - ?, really ?, are you really gonna do that ?
The fact that people got better at defending it (or that "dreaded" - the way Terrans describe it - Photon overcharge) does not reduce the strength of it if it happens, but makes that "one-way-ticket" for Terran which they don't like.. But yah - been saying all this time - a normal sane person would at least admit that Marine drops are too strong for opponent's non-Terran eco.. And if you "take away" some weakness of Terran - they'll be far too strong..
And that strength will not be in the "can be forseen" form (such as the Protoss is), but instead Terran can sit, mule, "risk" and lose a "MULE" (and by Mule I mean of a Marine drop) and still not suck at the main fight (if the buff was pre-lategame or the likes of buffing already most used units).. Well - that's too much yo
But yes - once again - the point is - IF YOU BUFF TERRAN EARILER ON (such as that Widown-Mine change) - YOU RISK A SNOWBALL (and IMO as opposed to people playing only Terran think that's BAD for the game, and sucks HARD), and that's all
I didn't try to "justify" Terran suckage, instead what I was trying to say was - if you buff Terran earlier than late-game - they'll snowball.. Hence WHY I'm against that Widow-Mine buff.. THAT was my point, not justifying Terran suckage.. But while we're at it - don't the Mine-drops do the same thing, hm ?, the point is - both mines and Templars cost GAS.. While Marine drops typically/usually cost a MULE and nothing more
Last time I checked to drop you need a medivac that cost gas. Just sayin'.
I didn't try to "justify" Terran suckage, instead what I was trying to say was - if you buff Terran earlier than late-game - they'll snowball.. Hence WHY I'm against that Widow-Mine buff.. THAT was my point, not justifying Terran suckage.. But while we're at it - don't the Mine-drops do the same thing, hm ?, the point is - both mines and Templars cost GAS.. While Marine drops typically/usually cost a MULE and nothing more
Last time I checked to drop you need a medivac that cost gas. Just sayin'.
That's why you have that "thruster" don't you, to make sure you don't lose the Medivac.. Also - since even I (a sucky Silver-league player) can do those drops, do damage, get out, there's something about them not being a problem to execute, right ?
True that they're not "set & forget" thing, but they surely won't cost gas if you're careful "at least somewhat"
LiquidSnute u are my new Hero While he wasn't the only one to adress the right issues, Snute was the only one that made any sense at all in his ideas, and he is ZERG!
On July 08 2014 16:21 VArsovskiSC wrote: [...] Also - since even I (a sucky Silver-league player) can do those drops, do damage, get out, there's something about them not being a problem to execute, right ? [...
If you are Silver so is your opponent I suppose. Try to drop someone who is aware of the minimap, feedbacks your Medivacs and pulls his/her probes.
Yes, in lower leagues, a single drop could win you the game. This gets less frequent the better both players are.
I didn't try to "justify" Terran suckage, instead what I was trying to say was - if you buff Terran earlier than late-game - they'll snowball.. Hence WHY I'm against that Widow-Mine buff.. THAT was my point, not justifying Terran suckage.. But while we're at it - don't the Mine-drops do the same thing, hm ?, the point is - both mines and Templars cost GAS.. While Marine drops typically/usually cost a MULE and nothing more
No this is a very deceiving way of presenting it. If Zerg is getting his signifcant advantage during the midgame (getting a great creep spread, multiple bases and maxing out fast), then a midgame buff to terran will simply reduce the assymetry and make the game more equal going into the midgame --> Less snowbally. Your logic would be true if terran already were dominating midgame totally, but they simply aren't. Instead, a lot of terrans gets behind in the proces of trying to clear up creep/pressuring 4th/5th. Now if instead, they could clear up creep and escape behind stronger Widow Mines, you would have a much more even matchup going into the lategame.
Were you watching TvZ between September-November? Games were really really back-and-fourth and it was considered the best matchup in the game. I simply cannot phantom why anyone who watched TvZ's during this period of the game would fear that it would make the TvZ matchup more snowbally as that logic simply goes directly against real world observations.
Also, please be aware the Widow Mine vs zerg isn't an early game unit, but a midgame unit (unlike the Hellbat)
I completely agree with the people above. Terran midgame is FINE, medivac drops are FINE! Buffing this one thing only shows Blizzard balance team's lack of ideas. You have no clue how to fix the game with something new (or no courage to go sit down with de design team and create something that balances things out), so you just buff whatever the players found that works well against other races. But the problem doesn't lie there, it is in two very clear factors which have been mentioned here, in the ZvPcraft thread and in many other places. I list them below with my own ideas of how to fix:
1) The complete lack of diverse openers --> PLEASE give us some more diversity of early harrassment options. Now, there's the all-famed marine drops, and what else?! Give us something equivalent to an Oracle or fast DTs (buff banshee speed, go back on the cloak cost idea, or maybe make banshees 1shot workers like DTs do?!). Give us some additional use for mines in the early game (the last mine nerf was indeed too hard!). --> Make some use of the reaper for harassing workers, instead of just a glorified scout! make him faster speed, or regen faster, so he doesnt get shot down asap by any 1-2 stalkers or 1-2 queens. --> PLEASE make siege tanks USEABLE again in the early and late game....maybe buff damage, lower siege mode cast time.....do something because we cannot fight banelings at 1:1 with marines, it DOES NOT WORK! --> PLEASE give us some kind of time warp or early static defense able to discourage this blink-all-in-craziness ! --> PLEASE make us not have to blind-counter almost every game with ebay and turrets when toss is doing something else (see ZvPcraft post) or give us a threat that makes them do a similar action.
2) Terran absolute death in the lategame. --> PLEASE give us some kind of meaningful mech composition that doesn't miserably fail. I have seen hellions (and Hellbats too) getting destroyed by ZEALOTS, the unit they naturally counter! Also, give me a mech unit that can 3-shot an immortal or a collossus, the way immortals do to my tanks or collossus do to my bio. And if you can give that unit a hardened shield making it immune to collossus fire, i appeciate it! --> PLEASE make the battlecruiser useable in TvP! Give him some hardened armor (at least upgrade), so that he's actually a tier 3.5 unit, countered ONLY BY SPECIALIZED UNITS voidrays/vikings/corruptors, not by blinking stalkers tier 1 unit. --> PLEASE make the Thor actually useable lategame against protoss and zerg, and, like someone above said, make him less squishy and/or more mobile! I really want to know, on a lategame scenario where there are 3-4-5 bases and fighting going all around, how am i going to use this one clunky extremely slow-moving unit to any effect, when my opponent can just blink/run away until he has the perfect concave/position or just throw armies of 200/200 roaches at me focusing until the thors are dead and he's still reproducing roaches at the same speed while i'm waiting on the build time then the sloooow march time across the map?!?! --> PLEASE give me a spellcaster that can actually hurt ALL the meaningful enemy units in the mid-late game, similar to the templar. One storm hurts marines, marauders, medivacs, hellbats and tanks quite badly, while raven missle dmg is much too low atm even for basic units like marauders and zerglings/hydras, let's not mention stalkers, collossi, even zealots or archons just LOL at it. OK maybe it is useable against mutalisk cloud, but why should it be completely useless in TvP? Storm hits mutas just as hard as my bioball....one toss can defend a 3rd or 4th base from mutas with 2 templars and a handful of warpin stalkers!!
Like some of the above posters i am not very high in league, but i watch alot of streams and tournaments and it's obvious that there is something wrong with the game, especially against Terrans. I agree that it is eerily similar to the GGLord Infestor era, and something needs to change.
EDIT: Also, a major problem is the "timeclock" that everyone seems mentioning. If a terran cannot close the game within X minutes he's dead.
Probably the biggest problem are the players, yes T needs a slight buff, but we can see T doing well in every WCS or mb the map pool which is quite good now for Z
I'm thinking maybe some sort of Armory upgrade for Reapers - given that they're so useful after the first five minutes, perhaps some sort of speed buff to snipe zealots or banes (with dmg increase somewhere), or a survival upgrade so that any damage inflicted on the reaper is capped at 15-20 damage, allowing them to dance a bit more in front of the enemy.
Either that, or just bloody blink Battlecruisers. lol.
I didn't try to "justify" Terran suckage, instead what I was trying to say was - if you buff Terran earlier than late-game - they'll snowball.. Hence WHY I'm against that Widow-Mine buff.. THAT was my point, not justifying Terran suckage.. But while we're at it - don't the Mine-drops do the same thing, hm ?, the point is - both mines and Templars cost GAS.. While Marine drops typically/usually cost a MULE and nothing more
No this is a very deceiving way of presenting it. If Zerg is getting his signifcant advantage during the midgame (getting a great creep spread, multiple bases and maxing out fast), then a midgame buff to terran will simply reduce the assymetry and make the game more equal going into the midgame --> Less snowbally. Your logic would be true if terran already were dominating midgame totally, but they simply aren't. Instead, a lot of terrans gets behind in the proces of trying to clear up creep/pressuring 4th/5th. Now if instead, they could clear up creep and escape behind stronger Widow Mines, you would have a much more even matchup going into the lategame.
Were you watching TvZ between September-November? Games were really really back-and-fourth and it was considered the best matchup in the game. I simply cannot phantom why anyone who watched TvZ's during this period of the game would fear that it would make the TvZ matchup more snowbally as that logic simply goes directly against real world observations.
Also, please be aware the Widow Mine vs zerg isn't an early game unit, but a midgame unit (unlike the Hellbat)
Ehmmm, hmmm.. how to write it... you know, there is a MU called TvP, where mine drops from early stages of HotS caused a lost game early on. Basically if it wasn't hellbat drop it was a mine drop. There were some DH(?) games, where this kind of drop basically ended the game with 10+ probes dead. It's like the opposite of oracle but just drop, burrow and forget... which is wrong. Buffing early/midgame T in TvZ means buffing it in TvP where midgame isn't problem(IMO), problem is scouting in early game and playing lategame. ________
I think the biggest problem is medevac. Why? Because it takes long to get there. You want to fix earlygame TvP and basically many problems in TvP - RETURN medic! Then you can just laugh at PO with few units because you have fast healing unit from barracks. BAM! Early aggression solved, early greed from protoss solved. Barracks with techlab is laughable price ,-) Also now the drops are weaker(?), because you cannot load so much combat units, so you can buff(!!!) bio to address TvZ problems without affecting TvP so much. And as a bonus, the splash damage from protoss is reduced! How? because there are medics in the army, your combat units aren't so clumped, also medics run through your army, so it creates more "smaller" groups(think about it as a auto split in a way), so splash to combat units is reduced. And because you cannot so clump your units -> smaller DPS -> you can buff terran without any hesitations ,-) Also - medics are harder to feedback, 'cause they are tiny, therefore GHOST is harder to feedback, because bio has many mana bars now and ghosts are harder to target(in fact lategame buff with just addition of a unit). Also, drops are now HARDER!!! to defend, because feedback(dropships doesn't heal, why mana?), but drops are weaker, so ... no problem?(maybe my suggestion to buff bio is wrong when I read this line )
Medic behavior was observed in a Wings of Liberty campaign, I am taking this from there.
So - I think the biggest problem is medevac right now and reverting back to medics would made the game better. From that you can buff some unit to address the TvZ, maybe some flying caster INSTEAD of medevacs? Raven redesign, return of Science weasel(and yeah, this is not a mistake dear terrans, I really typed weasel )...
Although I know this never happen, I wish, as a Protoss player myself(I do play random from time to time, BTW), to see medics back. And I hope for it in LotV.
A different approach to snowballing would be to say it incentivizes one race to pressure the opponent. In that sense it can be part of good design.
For instance, in the TvZ match-up the zerg has three 'strategic assets' to use as a stepping stone to a decisive advantage: economy, mutalisk numbers and creep spread. These can not be left unchecked, and force action, which actually contributes to the parade push style some people love.
Nerf tanks->buff tanks, nerf WM->buff WM, Nerf mech->buff mech etc. When will this stupidity end? When will Blizzard wake up and dump David Kim once and for all? This guy has proven itself as an incompetent countless of times. If SC2 wants to have a future as an e-sport David Kim needs to go ASAP.
Ehmmm, hmmm.. how to write it... you know, there is a MU called TvP, where mine drops from early stages of HotS caused a lost game early on. Basically if it wasn't hellbat drop it was a mine drop. There were some DH(?) games, where this kind of drop basically ended the game with 10+ probes dead. It's like the opposite of oracle but just drop, burrow and forget... which is wrong. Buffing early/midgame T in TvZ means buffing it in TvP where midgame isn't problem(IMO), problem is scouting in early game and playing lategame.
Yeh for the first week of HOTS. Then people figured it out, and it was somewhat rarely used post Summer 2013, stop rewriting history please.
Further, this change is completley irrelevant for TvP as extra damage vs splash can be reduced in order to maintain Widow Mines strenght vs protoss while making it better vs zerg. And yes, that was what David Kim implied with his post. He isn't gonna buff the Mine vs protoss.
Maybe a drop pods mechanics would work? It gives Terran a similar resupply ability as Zerg and Protoss. Could be an upgrade from the Fusion Core (for 100/200/90s) and requires a tech lab on the barracks to use, dropping units in a visible area instantly (and then barracks goes on cool down like a warp gate). Putting it on fusion core and a long research time forces it as as late game upgrade.
Ehmmm, hmmm.. how to write it... you know, there is a MU called TvP, where mine drops from early stages of HotS caused a lost game early on. Basically if it wasn't hellbat drop it was a mine drop. There were some DH(?) games, where this kind of drop basically ended the game with 10+ probes dead. It's like the opposite of oracle but just drop, burrow and forget... which is wrong. Buffing early/midgame T in TvZ means buffing it in TvP where midgame isn't problem(IMO), problem is scouting in early game and playing lategame. ________
Weren't there some games where an oracle or a DT ended a games with 10+ workers kills too ? What's the difference ?
Ehmmm, hmmm.. how to write it... you know, there is a MU called TvP, where mine drops from early stages of HotS caused a lost game early on. Basically if it wasn't hellbat drop it was a mine drop. There were some DH(?) games, where this kind of drop basically ended the game with 10+ probes dead. It's like the opposite of oracle but just drop, burrow and forget... which is wrong. Buffing early/midgame T in TvZ means buffing it in TvP where midgame isn't problem(IMO), problem is scouting in early game and playing lategame. ________
Weren't there some games where an oracle or a DT ended a games with 10+ workers kills too ? What's the difference ?
There isn't a big one, it's a similar concept. The only real difference is the amount of time it takes the units to kill the amount of workers. The mine gets more kills a lot faster, then sits for a cooldown, whereas the oracle and DT take a fair amount of time to get the kills, and are slightly easier to escape from. That said, I don't see that there's any real difference here, and I don't think mine drops are 'imba', even if buffed a little.
They are too focused on keeping each race in an archetype while trying to make things "exciting". No one wants each race to play the same or be mirrors of each other, but they should ALL have the same tools, or near enough, and if not the same tools they should have a way to counter the things they don't have.
IIt's sad that they can sit and quote tournament rankings from games played by people who make a living playing the game and say things like "we want to see more exciting games/use of this Unit.". I don't want to see an exciting game. It's "exciting" watching a Terran struggle against swarm hosts, meta clouds, and tempest, yes, or watching a widow mine connect. But it's not because it's FUN to watch, it's because I'm sitting here wondering how effective their defense or aggression will REALLY be. Is it enough to stave off defeat? Will they pull through?
You can call a mugging, a car jacking, and stealing something "exciting", but that doesn't mean it's GOOD.
stop forcing to make widdowmines work! as for the medivacs nice thought but boosting the unload speed would make earlygame medivac herras vs impossible to hande. making their combat usefullness or reducing their cost slightly would be better i think, or even the movementspeed by a little bit but not the unload speed. I can see it happen already: one moment you are just macroing as a happy zerg with your units securing your mapcontrol, the next moment terran boosts in with his medivacs drops all his units INSTANT in your main, stims/sieges, kills your entire main lifts up and boosts away before speedlings even arrive and while you think about trying to stay in game your see your base on the other side of the map being overrun by the same units that just killed your main. I agree terran needs a buff, but not the speed+unload speed buff as that would make the game just more annoying and in no way more fun than a normal terran buff.
Snute asked for ""the correlation between Mutalisk count and win rate", so I ran some numbers.
The data comes from approximately 2100 ZvT games from roughly April 2013 to present on Spawning Tool. The vast majority of replays are from tournament replay packs and should represent high-level play, though other games are not filtered out.
The frequency of counts tails off, and I truncated the data around 50ish since past that, there were fewer than 10 games at each point. The raw data is available here.
Looking at the data myself, I'm not seeing a lot. There may be a bump around 16 Mutas, but otherwise, it's hovering around 50% with some variance due to small sample sizes. What do you guys think?
On July 09 2014 23:44 DeathSoror wrote: Snute asked for ""the correlation between Mutalisk count and win rate", so I ran some numbers.
The data comes from approximately 2100 ZvT games from roughly April 2013 to present on Spawning Tool. The vast majority of replays are from tournament replay packs and should represent high-level play, though other games are not filtered out.
The frequency of counts tails off, and I truncated the data around 50ish since past that, there were fewer than 10 games at each point. The raw data is available here.
Looking at the data myself, I'm not seeing a lot. There may be a bump around 16 Mutas, but otherwise, it's hovering around 50% with some variance due to small sample sizes. What do you guys think?
Needs to be weighted for how many games are at each point. If 80% of games are around 30 mutas then then it will look much different than if 80% of games were only 10 mutas.
Example: Say the sample size is 100 games. 50 of those games were reached 30 mutas and the rest are divide evenly. According to this data then, 50% of games have an 80% win rate in favor for Zerg.
Ultimately though, this confirms there is a "sweet spot" or "critical mass" for mutas and that if you make mutas, aim for around 30 because that will indicate you'd have a maximum advantage.
Edit: This also shows the early pressure from Terran. When you rush mutas, youre vulnerable to a timing attack by Terran, and at that time you'll have 3-4 mutas but end up losing becuase you don't have anything else. You can see that on the win rates that Zerg loses often when they fail to defend a common Terran timing attack at the 3-4 muta mark.
Edit2: It also shows the 16 muta point which is also an ideal point where 16 muta secondary bounce deal around 50 damage which kills Marines and SCVs a whole attack cycle faster. Its also around this point you can one shot medivacs with mutas stopping drops. When you get to 30 the bounces can kill medivacs and you can one shot turrets and have enough DPS to kill beefy units and have enough DPS to negate small packs of marines.
"I talked to bbyong and he said that TvP lategame is hard mostly because of feedback which is devastating to packs of ghosts."
How can a single-target spell can be devastating to a pack of units, whereas one spell from the said pack can shutdown a huge pack of templars ? Usually by the time you can feedback every ghost you'll take enough EMP to have no energy for anything.
On July 10 2014 00:04 Sakray wrote: "I talked to bbyong and he said that TvP lategame is hard mostly because of feedback which is devastating to packs of ghosts."
How can a single-target spell can be devastating to a pack of units, whereas one spell from the said pack can shutdown a huge pack of templars ? Usually by the time you can feedback every ghost you'll take enough EMP to have no energy for anything.
I'd love to know this, too. Even if you use a stray templar to feedback, you've essentially emp'd your templar, anyways. Is the plan at a high level to snipe obs then use mass cloaked ghosts?
On July 10 2014 00:04 Sakray wrote: "I talked to bbyong and he said that TvP lategame is hard mostly because of feedback which is devastating to packs of ghosts."
How can a single-target spell can be devastating to a pack of units, whereas one spell from the said pack can shutdown a huge pack of templars ? Usually by the time you can feedback every ghost you'll take enough EMP to have no energy for anything.
Feedback is instant. Feedback will hit before EMP and then EMP will never occur. You can spam Feeback, its cheap and devastating unlike EMP where missing one can cost the game. EMP may have a 1 range advantage, but if you're not on point and aim the burst (which requires no unit to target) and you just happen to get in range of the Feedback (which can be instant and queued) then you lose a ghost. Even if you EMP a unit, it doesn't actually kill them while feedback will.
It comes down to the fact that mistakes with ghosts are easier to make an more costly than missing a feedback is for templar.
On July 10 2014 00:04 Sakray wrote: "I talked to bbyong and he said that TvP lategame is hard mostly because of feedback which is devastating to packs of ghosts."
How can a single-target spell can be devastating to a pack of units, whereas one spell from the said pack can shutdown a huge pack of templars ?
High level Protoss hide Templars to flank and can quickly shift Feedback 4 Ghosts, which can result in up to 4 instant casualties. Trading 1 HT vs 2-4 Ghosts is of course very favourable.
On July 09 2014 23:44 DeathSoror wrote: Snute asked for ""the correlation between Mutalisk count and win rate", so I ran some numbers.
The data comes from approximately 2100 ZvT games from roughly April 2013 to present on Spawning Tool. The vast majority of replays are from tournament replay packs and should represent high-level play, though other games are not filtered out.
The frequency of counts tails off, and I truncated the data around 50ish since past that, there were fewer than 10 games at each point. The raw data is available here.
Looking at the data myself, I'm not seeing a lot. There may be a bump around 16 Mutas, but otherwise, it's hovering around 50% with some variance due to small sample sizes. What do you guys think?
Seems like in Korea, zergs are favoring more early banelings, (especially True) over getting a big muta flock up quickly. Killing Terrans with overwhelming Baneling numbers, with just a small flock of muta to harass, from majority of the Zerg Proleague games and Code S in Korea.
Seems like greedy baneling styles are giving Terran more issues than mass muta in Korea. Watch more games decided on early gas in upgrades and banelings than mutas.
Ever since the Mine nerf, Banelings have been the issue, not really mutas, with Terrans not having a effective way to kill mass banelings.
On July 09 2014 23:44 DeathSoror wrote: Snute asked for ""the correlation between Mutalisk count and win rate", so I ran some numbers.
The data comes from approximately 2100 ZvT games from roughly April 2013 to present on Spawning Tool. The vast majority of replays are from tournament replay packs and should represent high-level play, though other games are not filtered out.
The frequency of counts tails off, and I truncated the data around 50ish since past that, there were fewer than 10 games at each point. The raw data is available here.
Looking at the data myself, I'm not seeing a lot. There may be a bump around 16 Mutas, but otherwise, it's hovering around 50% with some variance due to small sample sizes. What do you guys think?
On July 09 2014 23:44 DeathSoror wrote: Snute asked for ""the correlation between Mutalisk count and win rate", so I ran some numbers.
The data comes from approximately 2100 ZvT games from roughly April 2013 to present on Spawning Tool. The vast majority of replays are from tournament replay packs and should represent high-level play, though other games are not filtered out.
The frequency of counts tails off, and I truncated the data around 50ish since past that, there were fewer than 10 games at each point. The raw data is available here.
Looking at the data myself, I'm not seeing a lot. There may be a bump around 16 Mutas, but otherwise, it's hovering around 50% with some variance due to small sample sizes. What do you guys think?
Over all it seems to be pretty noisy. But I think I can see certain general trends: 0-16; WR <50% : Games were Zerg dies of while transitioning to mutas. 17-32; WR >50% : Games were Zerg builds a Mutaball and does not replace any. 33+ WR =50% : Games were Zerg either trades Mutas and rebuilds them or were Zerg masses them.
On July 09 2014 23:44 DeathSoror wrote: Snute asked for ""the correlation between Mutalisk count and win rate", so I ran some numbers.
The data comes from approximately 2100 ZvT games from roughly April 2013 to present on Spawning Tool. The vast majority of replays are from tournament replay packs and should represent high-level play, though other games are not filtered out.
The frequency of counts tails off, and I truncated the data around 50ish since past that, there were fewer than 10 games at each point. The raw data is available here.
Looking at the data myself, I'm not seeing a lot. There may be a bump around 16 Mutas, but otherwise, it's hovering around 50% with some variance due to small sample sizes. What do you guys think?
I'm not sure if the X axis label is just a typo or if you actually did the analysis against "Mutas Made".
I don't think that will solve for the root of what Snute was asking if so.. I think you'd have to use Mutas Made - Mutas Lost.
A player who is sloppy and has to spend all his gas to keep his Muta count high is much less likely to win..
Am I misunderstanding the plot?
LOL this shit still makes me so sick too [image loading] Acer.Nerchio: Yes, i think drops are too powerful and zerg is too weak outside of creep while being too strong on creep.
Medes are too strong.. Mutas are fine.. but Medes are too strong.. same cost - slower - cant attack ground or air - have 0% chance of entering an area with adequate static and don't regen.. but too strong..Mutas tho.. NP
Sorry, there are too many statistical reasons for why this graph is absolutely irrelevant. The data is simply influenced by too much noice and you need to make a much more comprehensive regression analysis to get useful information.
On July 12 2014 00:21 DomeGetta wrote: Medes are too strong.. Mutas are fine.. but Medes are too strong.. same cost - slower - cant attack ground or air - have 0% chance of entering an area with adequate static and don't regen.. but too strong..Mutas tho.. NP
People keep asking for tanks to return to TvZ by buffing the tank. You get tanks whenever mutalisks aren't in play, as it's very effective vs. roach/hydra. The tank's stats are not the problem. Mutas sniping tanks is simply far too cost efficient, as Terran can never reliably punish an over-aggressive muta cloud anymore; they just fly in, take a bunch of damage to guarantee the tank kills, then fly off with low health only to fully heal in short order.
Then baneling waves roll in to kill the remaining bio.
I would like to see creep recede slightly faster, even if it meant it was slightly easier to spread as the game quickly becomes un-winnable if Terran makes an early mistake that gives Zerg even a few minutes of map control.
I'd love to see a change like having the nuke insta-clear creep. I have no idea how it would play out in terms of balance but it would be an interesting change that would open some new options and attack the issue of crazy creep spread that qxc was talking about.
I would like to see creep recede slightly faster, even if it meant it was slightly easier to spread as the game quickly becomes un-winnable if Terran makes an early mistake that gives Zerg even a few minutes of map control.
I'd love to see a change like having the nuke insta-clear creep. I have no idea how it would play out in terms of balance but it would be an interesting change that would open some new options and attack the issue of crazy creep spread that qxc was talking about.
That actually sounds pretty cool.. and might make ghosts worth working into ur unit comp late game but I think they would also have to add a snipe buff so that they had some utility.. not sure they would be worth the supply otherwise just to kill creep.
On July 12 2014 00:31 Hider wrote: Sorry, there are too many statistical reasons for why this graph is absolutely irrelevant. The data is simply influenced by too much noice and you need to make a much more comprehensive regression analysis to get useful information.
Yah outside of the "mutas made" vs. "mutas made - mutas lost" you probably still have a ways to go in culling the data before having it usable.
You'd have to probably isolate mech games vs bio games and run the analysis separate.
Also probably worth it to truncate games that one player gets enough of an advantage through an early game tactic like 2 rax or 6 pool or 10 pool or 1 base bane etc.. you'd really just want to run this on games played out standard ling/bling/muta vs. bio.. even tho mutas also dominate vs mech its a very different mechanic there.
I'm sure there is a way to do it but you'd have to really think through the assumptions prior to..
I'd actually be more interested to see the total gas mined vs. winrate.. I think that's the biggest thing in terms of creating a snowballed adv that cannot be overcome.. for you to get that muta cloud + the never ending baneling factory you need a lot of gas.. if you can get it you basically cant lose once you transition to ultra if you stay on creep and mine the map out..at least thats how it seems to me from the pro games I watch..
Even over all game length vs. winrate in both PvT and ZvT is probably something interesting to see.
I hate it how terrans are only strong in mid game (apart from cheese builds).
This is just a dream but I would like to see terrans get their own version of creep. I know it sounds ridiculous but if we had a way of spreading vision across the map (even if it were far less effective than creep is) then that would allow us to expand to a 3rd base quicker and not have to rely on mid game damage as much.
Maybe change the sensor tower so that it has less range but is cheaper and faster to build? And perhaps if destroyed, the sensor tower would automatically rebuild itself over the course of a minute or so if no enemy units are in range (e.g. creep), and also change the circle of the sensor tower on the minimap so it doesn't overlap with another one if there are 2 towers close to each other (as that would clutter the minimap)
On July 06 2014 06:26 Mojito99 wrote: Honestly, some of the responses really make me ask whether or not the ppl answering read the question
it seems abundantly clear, that in both TvP and TvZ, Terran has troubles in the late game.
Perhaps the ghost is the answer, it fits with the bio play in both matchups? perhaps an hp buff or make snipe usable vs biological again (obviously adjust dmg numbers) or increased range of snipe
When I proposed increased Snipe range and making Snipe work vs non-biological units before, I got downvoted to hell on reddit.
I think terran needs a different buff. I was always a hughe SC:BW fan and played terran there (now i play random) and i always liked how you were in need of missle turrets especially in tvz ofcourse we still build turrets but buffing them might help tanks as well as the overall gameplay.
I propose a turret range buff, not only the +1 you can research (wich is nice already), but additional 1 to 2 range.
Vs Toss If turrets outrange colossus it would help a tiny bit against toss and might even make defensive positions more valid. Also DT´s
Vs Zerg Muta play gets a bit harder for Zerg
Also turrets as tank support might get additional meaning.
If it was my choice i actually would buff the shit out of turrets -> more hp, more armor and/or more dps. But for now i would stick to more range.
I would love some comments on this, since this idea is in my head for some time, i think i picket it up from some pro player who proposed this a while ago.
On July 14 2014 10:06 vik7 wrote: i'd much rather hear the opinions of Korean pros if possible
David Kim should fly TheMarine to have him coach the balance team on the balance issues. What's really frustrating here is that this team led by David Kim doesn't understand this simple fact that balance will always be broken. What's important is not about balancing three races, but instead having each unit in the game unique and interesting. Sadly, the core design and interface of SC2 doesn't allow this behavior from most of the units. In fact, I fully agree with TheMarine in this regard that the only interesting unit out of all things is the stalkers and their blink micro. If the majority of units in the game is interesting and appealing to micro/macro aspects, then the rest of the balance can be accomplished by player attributes and strategies within the map design. This is the critical concept that these buffoons in the balance team, starting with David Kim, must realize.
On July 12 2014 00:21 DomeGetta wrote: Medes are too strong.. Mutas are fine.. but Medes are too strong.. same cost - slower - cant attack ground or air - have 0% chance of entering an area with adequate static and don't regen.. but too strong..Mutas tho.. NP
People keep asking for tanks to return to TvZ by buffing the tank. You get tanks whenever mutalisks aren't in play, as it's very effective vs. roach/hydra. The tank's stats are not the problem. Mutas sniping tanks is simply far too cost efficient, as Terran can never reliably punish an over-aggressive muta cloud anymore; they just fly in, take a bunch of damage to guarantee the tank kills, then fly off with low health only to fully heal in short order.
Then baneling waves roll in to kill the remaining bio.
Use mine tank. Tank shoot banes, mine shoot mutas. Get one thor to help clear muta clouds sniping tanks. 1 thor, a few tanks, a few mines, much cheaper than heaps of vikings and thors or marines.
I usually win TvZ's when I use mines a LOT. I usually lose when I opt not to use mines. Even though they take supply, instantly splatting 12 lings or banes can be so helpful. Yes, its unreliable. your minefields must grow in size relative to the time index of the game. Early/mid game is 2-3 mines. Lategame is 4-6 mines. When used with tank thor or marine or marauder, less mines can be more useful.
Still, there is nothing so satisfying than building 20 enhanced digging mines and sending a suicide squad on the enemy forces and bury mines right in the middle of them all and watch the equivalent of a nuke go off in their forces.
On July 14 2014 06:03 Mongoose wrote: I hate it how terrans are only strong in mid game (apart from cheese builds).
This is just a dream but I would like to see terrans get their own version of creep. I know it sounds ridiculous but if we had a way of spreading vision across the map (even if it were far less effective than creep is) then that would allow us to expand to a 3rd base quicker and not have to rely on mid game damage as much.
Maybe change the sensor tower so that it has less range but is cheaper and faster to build? And perhaps if destroyed, the sensor tower would automatically rebuild itself over the course of a minute or so if no enemy units are in range (e.g. creep), and also change the circle of the sensor tower on the minimap so it doesn't overlap with another one if there are 2 towers close to each other (as that would clutter the minimap)
Maybe they aren't strong in lategame for pros, but I typically go into late game vs P and Z if a cheese or all in doesnt kill me, and I find trading armies well and building up a mix of units than overrelying on a few or one type does better for late game. Marines and marauders are still core units to T, just like zealot/stalker for P, or ling/roach for Z, but if you fight P and lose and the replay says that your army cost is significantly lower at all times when you fight P, then the problem is self evident. Spending money on too much of one unit that easily gets countered without having some high cost/high power units.
On July 14 2014 11:14 Chilling5pr33 wrote: I think terran needs a different buff. I was always a hughe SC:BW fan and played terran there (now i play random) and i always liked how you were in need of missle turrets especially in tvz ofcourse we still build turrets but buffing them might help tanks as well as the overall gameplay.
I propose a turret range buff, not only the +1 you can research (wich is nice already), but additional 1 to 2 range.
Vs Toss If turrets outrange colossus it would help a tiny bit against toss and might even make defensive positions more valid. Also DT´s
Vs Zerg Muta play gets a bit harder for Zerg
Also turrets as tank support might get additional meaning.
If it was my choice i actually would buff the shit out of turrets -> more hp, more armor and/or more dps. But for now i would stick to more range.
I would love some comments on this, since this idea is in my head for some time, i think i picket it up from some pro player who proposed this a while ago.
Turrets outranging colossus is partially against the nature of a siege weapon, to hit from outside the range of most defenses.
Turrets already have pretty good DPS. if you want more hp, armor, and DPS, make more turrets like Z has to make multiple spores or P has to make multiple cannons, and still supplement those with real units to fend off an actual attack.
Static defenses work almost like brood war, they lose effectiveness over time as the upgrades kick in. This actually means you must build more or use supply cost units to supplement. In reality, static defenses are what allows late game to not stalemate. As your army gets stronger, you gain ability to engage weakly defended areas as static defenses become that much worse against your army, which means you can use tactics and strategies to bust into your enemy and beat them. If SD's kept pace with army DPS and armor, then lategame would be SD spam and nothing happening.
On July 14 2014 10:06 vik7 wrote: i'd much rather hear the opinions of Korean pros if possible
David Kim should fly TheMarine to have him coach the balance team on the balance issues. What's really frustrating here is that this team led by David Kim doesn't understand this simple fact that balance will always be broken. What's important is not about balancing three races, but instead having each unit in the game unique and interesting. Sadly, the core design and interface of SC2 doesn't allow this behavior from most of the units. In fact, I fully agree with TheMarine in this regard that the only interesting unit out of all things is the stalkers and their blink micro. If the majority of units in the game is interesting and appealing to micro/macro aspects, then the rest of the balance can be accomplished by player attributes and strategies within the map design. This is the critical concept that these buffoons in the balance team, starting with David Kim, must realize.
You're half right. In SC1 you had a damage with -% modifier instead of a strict damage +"towhatever" modifier. For instance, tanks are 25 damage +10 to armored. If they were 35 damage, -10 to light, suddenly, their damage against non-light but non-armored units would be different. You've got more wiggle room because things don't necessarily have to be armored for the tank to do a lot of damage, yet against light it still has it's damage reduced like SC1. It's still a bit of a binary unit, though.
That's the core problem of SC2 for a lot of things, it's all binary. Units are very binary compared to units in SC1, they either work or fail. SC1 units were much more gradient in how you could use them.
SC2 was designed to be binary. Dustin Browder said so in a VOD, though not using this exact word. He said that he was interested in making the game like football, where there is back and forth due to timings and upgrades. He cited banes and bane speed vs stim, presumably that one is supposed to create a "back" advantage while the other nullifies it for a "and forth" counter. Hence, binary. He also said colossus were going to be mineral line raiders sneaking up cliffs to kill workers, and that roaches could abuse burrow move to get into enemy bases (both of these are completely worthless in real play because of skill level + the fact the 'deathball' is more efficient). So it may not be hard to guess which person is messing up SC2 by being out of touch.
Also, the Thor "buff" for prioritizing air needs to go ASAP. A zerg can now "kite" thors by sending in overseers or ols with a ground army, and the thor will shoot that instead of the much more dangerous ling/roach/whatever.
It's good Blizzard are starting to at least try something :D
It would be a nice change if they looked decreasing the time it takes for a siege tank to siege and unsiege. Not talking instantly here, but faster than it is now.
Also iirc someone pointed out a while ago that because of a certain attribute of the banshee when you have more than 1 they are harder to micro. So pulling off the stutter step micro with 1 banshee is smooth, while 2 or more doesn't work as smoothly because of a game mechanic. Maybe Blizzard could look at changing this.
I think they should buff the ghost.. (nukes somehow too) maybe buff thor as well to make mech more viable as well basically buff the terran lategame units.. or options
On July 06 2014 06:32 Lunareste wrote: Thanks for the Q and A. I want to hear what Korean pros think, is there any way to reach out to Maru, Bbyong, Flash, Fantasy?
Sort of, but it's really hard and it takes a while. We wanted to get this article out asap, so decided to publish quickly instead.
We'll definitely try to include them in the next one though, assuming blizz goes through another iteration of potential changes soon.
Hi Teoita, great work.
I second that we should hear from Korean pros (referring to GSL/Proleague players), as they undeniably play at the highest levels and will give more qualified insight. Hope they reply to you soon.
On July 12 2014 00:21 DomeGetta wrote: Medes are too strong.. Mutas are fine.. but Medes are too strong.. same cost - slower - cant attack ground or air - have 0% chance of entering an area with adequate static and don't regen.. but too strong..Mutas tho.. NP
People keep asking for tanks to return to TvZ by buffing the tank. You get tanks whenever mutalisks aren't in play, as it's very effective vs. roach/hydra. The tank's stats are not the problem. Mutas sniping tanks is simply far too cost efficient, as Terran can never reliably punish an over-aggressive muta cloud anymore; they just fly in, take a bunch of damage to guarantee the tank kills, then fly off with low health only to fully heal in short order.
Then baneling waves roll in to kill the remaining bio.
Use mine tank. Tank shoot banes, mine shoot mutas. Get one thor to help clear muta clouds sniping tanks. 1 thor, a few tanks, a few mines, much cheaper than heaps of vikings and thors or marines.
I usually win TvZ's when I use mines a LOT. I usually lose when I opt not to use mines. Even though they take supply, instantly splatting 12 lings or banes can be so helpful. Yes, its unreliable. your minefields must grow in size relative to the time index of the game. Early/mid game is 2-3 mines. Lategame is 4-6 mines. When used with tank thor or marine or marauder, less mines can be more useful.
Still, there is nothing so satisfying than building 20 enhanced digging mines and sending a suicide squad on the enemy forces and bury mines right in the middle of them all and watch the equivalent of a nuke go off in their forces.
Are there any high-level (Masters) replays of this actually working? I'm intrigued, but skeptical.
I'm curious how the synergy (if any) works between Mines and Tanks. Although in theory you could use Mines and Tanks to bait out Mutas (Tanks are a Muta magnet) I doubt a Mine would kill off every single Zergling/Muta trying to kill that Tank. Once Zerg closes the distance a Tank is essentially a crappier Mine (although it keeps shooting if it doesn't die).
You'd also be putting a lot of supply into stuff that has to Burrow/Siege before they become useful. Would make pushing on creep a tricky thing at best.
How many times does this need to be said... Thor will not shoot anything that can't hurt it before combat units. Bringing an Overlord along will not make the Thor ignore Roaches or Muta that are attacking it....
I'm curious how the synergy (if any) works between Mines and Tanks. Although in theory you could use Mines and Tanks to bait out Mutas (Tanks are a Muta magnet) I doubt a Mine would kill off every single Zergling/Muta trying to kill that Tank.
If Mine had longer AA range and could protect tanks from Mutas, it might be a different story. But right now you need Marines to protect Mines anyway from being picked up by Mutas.
But the real issue is that terran in general losses alot of battles in the midgame and thus needs a mobile army that can escape. When you go tanks on the other hand, you need to win the battle when you move out. You can only do that if you have the critical mass of supply/Tank count and when you start to get close to maxed, then Widow Mines start to suffer a lot from their 2 supply and you really just rather replace those Widow Mines with Siege Tanks anyway then.
That was basically why the Tank buff/Widow Mine nerf would never accomplish anything at all. It was rather easy to predict that either the Tank/marine compositon would be dominant or the 4M would be. It was never realistic to expect terrans to mix both of them together.
DK acknolwewded that the 4M composition (prepatch) wasn't imbalanced, but thought he could maintain balance but create a better gameplay by making it possible to mix tanks and Mines together. However, as I argued in this post, that was never possible, and thus he left the game in a clearly imbalanced state for over 7 months. Not only that, it also made micro-requirements alot smaller for the zerg, as splitting against Widow Mines became irrelevant, thus making the TvZ matchup less interesting to watch. The mine-nerf patch was therefore by far the worst patch ever becasue it was very easy to predict that it never would work.
Queen patch in that regard was nowhere near as bad as it did attempt to fix a real problem (terran too strong early game TvZ). The real issue back then was the zerg late composition itself, Broodlord/Infestor. Not the early game.
+ This one is a bit silly but maybe in the late-game ... Terran could call down Barracks units from space to a Medivac location instead of having to walk them across the map? Haha. Just a thought :D
One from the campaign (which played really weak there). It'd be an interesting upgrade at say fusion core or armoury :D Might help the late game reinforcement disparity.
ROOT.Iaguz: Maybe a slight one. I think for most of HotS up until the last 6 months, Zerg was the harder race to play, but they've trained themselves to deal with most of our common timings and tightened up all aspects of Ling/Bane/Muta style play (nerfs to widow mines and hellbats surely didn't hurt, of course). Add in favorable maps and of course Zerg appears to have an edge, and now it's up to Terrans to tighten up their execution in turn.
Pick it up, Terrans. =P In all seriousness, I love this answer.
ROOT.Iaguz: Maybe a slight one. I think for most of HotS up until the last 6 months, Zerg was the harder race to play, but they've trained themselves to deal with most of our common timings and tightened up all aspects of Ling/Bane/Muta style play (nerfs to widow mines and hellbats surely didn't hurt, of course). Add in favorable maps and of course Zerg appears to have an edge, and now it's up to Terrans to tighten up their execution in turn.
Pick it up, Terrans. =P In all seriousness, I love this answer.
"Pick it up, Terrans. =P" It's kinda funny nobody said that when zergs were dealing with pre nerf widow mines and hellbats.
I'm curious how the synergy (if any) works between Mines and Tanks. Although in theory you could use Mines and Tanks to bait out Mutas (Tanks are a Muta magnet) I doubt a Mine would kill off every single Zergling/Muta trying to kill that Tank.
If Mine had longer AA range and could protect tanks from Mutas, it might be a different story. But right now you need Marines to protect Mines anyway from being picked up by Mutas.
But the real issue is that terran in general losses alot of battles in the midgame and thus needs a mobile army that can escape. When you go tanks on the other hand, you need to win the battle when you move out. You can only do that if you have the critical mass of supply/Tank count and when you start to get close to maxed, then Widow Mines start to suffer a lot from their 2 supply and you really just rather replace those Widow Mines with Siege Tanks anyway then.
That was basically why the Tank buff/Widow Mine nerf would never accomplish anything at all. It was rather easy to predict that either the Tank/marine compositon would be dominant or the 4M would be. It was never realistic to expect terrans to mix both of them together.
DK acknolwewded that the 4M composition (prepatch) wasn't imbalanced, but thought he could maintain balance but create a better gameplay by making it possible to mix tanks and Mines together. However, as I argued in this post, that was never possible, and thus he left the game in a clearly imbalanced state for over 7 months. Not only that, it also made micro-requirements alot smaller for the zerg, as splitting against Widow Mines became irrelevant, thus making the TvZ matchup less interesting to watch. The mine-nerf patch was therefore by far the worst patch ever becasue it was very easy to predict that it never would work.
Queen patch in that regard was nowhere near as bad as it did attempt to fix a real problem (terran too strong early game TvZ). The real issue back then was the zerg late composition itself, Broodlord/Infestor. Not the early game.
I don't know about that. I often fold zergs in midgame by 4 reactor factories and just spam mines at them. The key about using mines is not using too little. It's as much of a unit selection obligation as choosing mass bio.
On July 15 2014 16:30 Thezzy wrote: I'm curious how the synergy (if any) works between Mines and Tanks. Although in theory you could use Mines and Tanks to bait out Mutas (Tanks are a Muta magnet) I doubt a Mine would kill off every single Zergling/Muta trying to kill that Tank. Once Zerg closes the distance a Tank is essentially a crappier Mine (although it keeps shooting if it doesn't die).
You'd also be putting a lot of supply into stuff that has to Burrow/Siege before they become useful. Would make pushing on creep a tricky thing at best.
It's not hard to do the math on it. WMs are 75-25, 2 supply. Mutas are 100-100, 2 supply. If you put 6 mines around a tank, that's 15 supply and not much gas. WM's dont overkill, so mutas are going to either try to magic box, charge in and die, or send in ling/bane to bait the WM. Since there's a tank involved, one ling wont get close, a few lings will die to tank + 1 widow mine, and a large cluster of lings will be needed to bait enough of the WM and allow the mutas to do their work. It's only 600 minerals and 275 gas to possibly either kill 10 mutas+ at much greater cost and supply, or 20 lings/banes.
It favors terran greatly. Although like I said, I usually just cluster about 20 mines in separate groups and send them on multiple paths to zerg bases. One cluster usually makes it through to dig in and start killing drones (or forces them to pull drones and lose their income, a single spine crawler with a spore is immaterial at this point), while the others got tied up, dug in early, and are zoning that area for my marines and more sets of mines to come in. I've gotten 10 kills instantly on lings with a single WM before. They ain't that bad.
I'm curious how the synergy (if any) works between Mines and Tanks. Although in theory you could use Mines and Tanks to bait out Mutas (Tanks are a Muta magnet) I doubt a Mine would kill off every single Zergling/Muta trying to kill that Tank.
If Mine had longer AA range and could protect tanks from Mutas, it might be a different story. But right now you need Marines to protect Mines anyway from being picked up by Mutas.
But the real issue is that terran in general losses alot of battles in the midgame and thus needs a mobile army that can escape. When you go tanks on the other hand, you need to win the battle when you move out. You can only do that if you have the critical mass of supply/Tank count and when you start to get close to maxed, then Widow Mines start to suffer a lot from their 2 supply and you really just rather replace those Widow Mines with Siege Tanks anyway then.
That was basically why the Tank buff/Widow Mine nerf would never accomplish anything at all. It was rather easy to predict that either the Tank/marine compositon would be dominant or the 4M would be. It was never realistic to expect terrans to mix both of them together.
DK acknolwewded that the 4M composition (prepatch) wasn't imbalanced, but thought he could maintain balance but create a better gameplay by making it possible to mix tanks and Mines together. However, as I argued in this post, that was never possible, and thus he left the game in a clearly imbalanced state for over 7 months. Not only that, it also made micro-requirements alot smaller for the zerg, as splitting against Widow Mines became irrelevant, thus making the TvZ matchup less interesting to watch. The mine-nerf patch was therefore by far the worst patch ever becasue it was very easy to predict that it never would work.
Queen patch in that regard was nowhere near as bad as it did attempt to fix a real problem (terran too strong early game TvZ). The real issue back then was the zerg late composition itself, Broodlord/Infestor. Not the early game.
Instead of marines to protect mines, just clump 4+ together. If they start using ling runbys to reset WM, one tank sitting on top of the WM creates a zone that only a concerted attack can defeat. It also steals map control. The fun thing is that it's a lot of concentration and micro to use single lings to try to trip every single mine so they're on cooldown and can be killed by whatever. There's advantages to forcing your oppenent into a prolonged micro battle with a small set of burrow and forget Zoning tools.
I don't really understand the point of the WM nerf in light of getting tank synergy anyway. So you can burrow them closer to the tank, I guess that means they can trip when mutas fly over the tank and try to get kills. But the thing is, if that many mutas are on the tank it can be sniped and dead with some good muta micro anyway, unless you set the mines right on top of it so that they stay in the targeting zone, which if the WMs go off on the mutas, will mean a dead tank in any event. It's just shortsighted.
WM's to me are like dead man switches for your units. They die, and WM's go off, or worse, they die because WM's go off, but the end result is a lot of dead enemy units if you prepare properly.
Depending on the unit comp of the enemy, I'd rather WM's than tanks. 2 tanks for 3 WM, etc. Unit comps aren't just about what you can afford if you're allowed to bank and macro up and create a powerful 1-shot army. They're also about sustainable force creation under the strain of constant attack.
only giving ur opinion about what is the cause is not as effective as to say what is not the problem.
since everyone is saying something else.
0) terran to weak in general (blizzard) --> buff random units (medivac, mines) 1) terran weak late game (1a muta clouds, 1b creep, 1c mass bling) 2) maps in zerg favor 3) terran to strong with raven --> buff anti raven units 4) i know for sure there is a problem, blizzard proposed changes doesnt adress it but i have no idea how to fix it either 5) lack of useful gas units for terran 6) tanks not viable anymore 7) etc
actually u would need a list of what exactly the problem is or rather a list of WHAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. everytime u hear someone making a suggestion there are coming up serveral ppl to say 'this is not the problem'. if u vote on the stuff that shouldnt be fixed then this should lead to a way making less mistakes.
actually the current 'proposed changes' also try to adress this issue. "hey ppl, how about these changes?" - "they suck, make some other" <-- this will go on and on if blizzard doesnt put more effort into it.
like a strategic way to find out what is not the problem and what could be the problem.
as example for me
problem: is terran late game on big (!) maps and also the ineffectiveness of high gas tier3 units (like bcs --> WAAY to easy to counter in general / and also tank, thors --> big map no mobility) or the problems of dealing with high gas unit like raven --> no garantueed hsm damage since way to easy to dodge
possible solution: buff tier3 (high gas) units in a way that mainly effects the late game --> like an upgrade for mobility or another upgrade for some special effects or w/e will help
so if one can agree on what is the problem and what is not the problem THEN AND ONLY THEN it makes sense to put up suggestions for solutions. what blizzard is doing now is more like 'hey yo, race appears to be weak because of tournament results, lets buff some random units, what do you think, great idea?" and thats pretty poor imo
ROOT.Iaguz: Maybe a slight one. I think for most of HotS up until the last 6 months, Zerg was the harder race to play, but they've trained themselves to deal with most of our common timings and tightened up all aspects of Ling/Bane/Muta style play (nerfs to widow mines and hellbats surely didn't hurt, of course). Add in favorable maps and of course Zerg appears to have an edge, and now it's up to Terrans to tighten up their execution in turn.
Pick it up, Terrans. =P In all seriousness, I love this answer.
"Pick it up, Terrans. =P" It's kinda funny nobody said that when zergs were dealing with pre nerf widow mines and hellbats.
That's because of the double agenda of Zerg players; I think they're going to take over the world.. :-S
Instead of marines to protect mines, just clump 4+ together. If they start using ling runbys to reset WM, one tank sitting on top of the WM creates a zone that only a concerted attack can defeat. It also steals map control.
Doing this is pretty bad if he doesn't engage with Mutalisks only. There is a reason why terrans try to split up their Mines when they engage even though it's quite challenging.
ROOT.Iaguz: Maybe a slight one. I think for most of HotS up until the last 6 months, Zerg was the harder race to play, but they've trained themselves to deal with most of our common timings and tightened up all aspects of Ling/Bane/Muta style play (nerfs to widow mines and hellbats surely didn't hurt, of course). Add in favorable maps and of course Zerg appears to have an edge, and now it's up to Terrans to tighten up their execution in turn.
Pick it up, Terrans. =P In all seriousness, I love this answer.
"Pick it up, Terrans. =P" It's kinda funny nobody said that when zergs were dealing with pre nerf widow mines and hellbats.
After a shitty time at the very start of WoL zergs been spoiled by the nerf/buff cannon... Remember when the infestor got buffs to make it good against absolutely everything, nice game design there... and the queens buff against every early game pressure... and evoless spores to shut down flying and invisible things easily. Together you get the ~no units 3 base saturation situation we've hit now.
Thing is, pro-zergs were picking it up. It was only really innovation who was making the mines look broken. A lot of the time it was casual microless A moves of blobs of zerg that were suffering (which they should!). I liked it back then, it felt equally desperate on both sides.
Instead of marines to protect mines, just clump 4+ together. If they start using ling runbys to reset WM, one tank sitting on top of the WM creates a zone that only a concerted attack can defeat. It also steals map control.
Doing this is pretty bad if he doesn't engage with Mutalisks only. There is a reason why terrans try to split up their Mines when they engage even though it's quite challenging.
You can still have a tank in the minefield without clumping the mines. It's very effective vs the ling triggering mines move. It's just tricky to fit tank+wm into a smooth build.
When people play at 100% Terran is the best. Seriously, i'm a terran player, stop buffing em. I kill everyone in masters and can' t get into GM. These changes make it like people actually need mech. Rines an Mar's rape evrything ever. Maybe not Ultras if you don't micro but ffs, that's like 30 minutes inta the game. I know you want to stick to broodwar stats but the game is now way easier to micro instead of mass macro. Toss the protoss a carrot this time and zerg too, massing banelings is boring as hell.