Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (73 users)
Active: 7031 users | |
|
| nihoh Australia. May 09 2012 15:00. Posts 937 | Profile Blog # |
| I wished there was some diversity on Terran's part in TvP. The Immortal is something that needs to change. I really want to see some form of mech play instead of MMM Ghost, which is by most accounts pretty boring to watch. |
| | Dont look at the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. |
|
|
| Blazinghand United States. May 09 2012 15:07. Posts 12226 | Profile Blog # |
On May 09 2012 15:00 nihoh wrote:
I wished there was some diversity on Terran's part in TvP. The Immortal is something that needs to change. I really want to see some form of mech play instead of MMM Ghost, which is by most accounts pretty boring to watch.
I've had some modest success with 2-base bio mech pushes, but typically those are somewhat all in. Tanks are pretty sweet in the early game, even though they drop off sharply in the mid-late game. |
| | When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back. |
|
|
| PSiggy Slovakia. May 09 2012 16:51. Posts 12 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 14:50 mosfet wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote:
An especially pertinent issue is lategame reinforcement, Terran just cannot replenish a 200/200 army quickly enough. At the very least, as a small change I would recommend that Terran be allowed to queue units beyond their supply cap. As an experimental tweak I'd rather see something like that, than giving us Protoss a quicker observer buildtime
I really like this idea. Another idea would be to limit the amount of units warping per pylon at a time. I would imagine somewhere in the range of 4-6. A good toss would have to spend more money on forward pylons (less zealots) and a worse toss would have his reinforcements slowed down. The problem is changes like this would be pretty radical. I would be worried about breaking the other matchups. I do hope Blizzard looks into it for HOTS, at the very least.
I do not understand the concept of warping units at all. I understand that the idea might be that protoss warps in units when he needs to defend quicky (drops, early pressure, etc...). But then I do not understand why warping is done in the perimeter of pylon instead of nexus (wider diameter of course).
|
|
|
| Rafeekz United States. May 09 2012 17:03. Posts 10 | Profile # |
| Why do you guys always refer to pro players, it's not like every terran plays like them |
|
|
| Rimak Latvia. May 09 2012 17:14. Posts 408 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 16:51 PSiggy wrote:
I do not understand the concept of warping units at all. I understand that the idea might be that protoss warps in units when he needs to defend quicky (drops, early pressure, etc...). But then I do not understand why warping is done in the perimeter of pylon instead of nexus (wider diameter of course).
Are you calling Pylons OP?
Warp-in is just a mechanic, not easy to manage btw. |
| |
|
| archides United States. May 09 2012 17:18. Posts 27 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote:
An especially pertinent issue is lategame reinforcement, Terran just cannot replenish a 200/200 army quickly enough. At the very least, as a small change I would recommend that Terran be allowed to queue units beyond their supply cap. As an experimental tweak I'd rather see something like that, than giving us Protoss a quicker observer buildtime
I don't think that would change anything...because how is that different than keeping an eye on your food count during battle and training reinforcements as it drops below 200/200? (which is what you should be doing anyway)Last edit: 2012-05-09 17:19:39 |
| |
|
| InVerno May 09 2012 17:30. Posts 206 | Profile # |
From one side, protoss cant do a costefficient trade before the third base, because they're trading high%gas units with almost mineral units (if the terran save the medivacks). The harass options are inesistent, so they camper to live against drops e\o bad trades.
From the other side, terran cant brake a good protoss in defensive position, because all of their timings are exploited from centurys and the only option of variation (used often by GoD-TvPers like MKP) is the factory, and its a pretty gimmick stuff on a ladder scenario.
HotS? [ Bio (on large maps\ if u can handle the style) -- BioMech (as a standard of the Mu) -- Mech (on good maps for it)]
Seems the TvZ scheme. Yep , because TvZ got a godly-gamedesign. |
|
|
| Squigly United Kingdom. May 09 2012 17:44. Posts 629 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 14:55 Resistentialism wrote:
Can we stop making "Thoughts on X" threads?
It's a lazy way go through a laundry list of loosely connected grievances. Pare your damn topic down to a couple of points and put what you're going to talk about in the thread title. Otherwise your big smorgasbord of ideas oughta be rock solid, with linked proofs, and better be summable into a coherent train of though. This thread is not such.
Or take it to blogs! that's what they are there for
You should read the OP. It was a blog, an admin said it should be moved here. |
|
|
 Wombat_NI Northern Ireland. May 09 2012 18:19. Posts 5145 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 17:18 archides wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote:
An especially pertinent issue is lategame reinforcement, Terran just cannot replenish a 200/200 army quickly enough. At the very least, as a small change I would recommend that Terran be allowed to queue units beyond their supply cap. As an experimental tweak I'd rather see something like that, than giving us Protoss a quicker observer buildtime
I don't think that would change anything...because how is that different than keeping an eye on your food count during battle and training reinforcements as it drops below 200/200? (which is what you should be doing anyway)
According to Terran players it's simply too difficult to micro to the extent required to trade decently with a Protoss lategame army and macro simultaneously. I don't actually play Terran by the way, but I've had many, many a game where I've had a moderate-to-bad engagement, but crushed the Terran a minute later because they don't replenish halfway as quickly as lategame Toss |
| | 'You'll always be the cuddly marsupial of my heart, despite the inherent flaws of your ancestry' - McBengt Also anyone with any questions or desires to help the Irish scene, PM me! |
|
|
| kheldorin Singapore. May 09 2012 21:15. Posts 530 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 18:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 17:18 archides wrote:
On May 09 2012 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote:
An especially pertinent issue is lategame reinforcement, Terran just cannot replenish a 200/200 army quickly enough. At the very least, as a small change I would recommend that Terran be allowed to queue units beyond their supply cap. As an experimental tweak I'd rather see something like that, than giving us Protoss a quicker observer buildtime
I don't think that would change anything...because how is that different than keeping an eye on your food count during battle and training reinforcements as it drops below 200/200? (which is what you should be doing anyway)
According to Terran players it's simply too difficult to micro to the extent required to trade decently with a Protoss lategame army and macro simultaneously. I don't actually play Terran by the way, but I've had many, many a game where I've had a moderate-to-bad engagement, but crushed the Terran a minute later because they don't replenish halfway as quickly as lategame Toss
A minute is more than enough to replenish the army. It actually takes time to build up templars, collossus and sentries again so if all you lost is the your zealots and stalkers, then it's not really a bad engagement. Without splash units, in ~150 supply battles after the maxed supply battle, Terran units crushes Protoss.Last edit: 2012-05-09 21:16:15 |
|
|
| zmansman17 United States. May 10 2012 02:31. Posts 2182 | Profile # |
On May 09 2012 14:50 mosfet wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 09:39 Wombat_NI wrote:
An especially pertinent issue is lategame reinforcement, Terran just cannot replenish a 200/200 army quickly enough. At the very least, as a small change I would recommend that Terran be allowed to queue units beyond their supply cap. As an experimental tweak I'd rather see something like that, than giving us Protoss a quicker observer buildtime
I really like this idea. Another idea would be to limit the amount of units warping per pylon at a time. I would imagine somewhere in the range of 4-6. A good toss would have to spend more money on forward pylons (less zealots) and a worse toss would have his reinforcements slowed down. The problem is changes like this would be pretty radical. I would be worried about breaking the other matchups. I do hope Blizzard looks into it for HOTS, at the very least.
Yeah these are both great ideas. Of course I like the former more than the ladder since it benefits Terran more. Or both for that matter  |
| | ♞ - His EKG is flattening get me a defib stat! Prepped and Ready! - ♞ |
|
|
| Umami United States. May 10 2012 03:44. Posts 19 | Profile # |
| Despite what people think mech play is actually very good vs the deathball, people just need to learn to have better positioning when it comes to their siege tanks. Think about it if people are going MMM they are sacrificing power for speeds, it's like when a zerg goes muta ling vs a toss. They never engage straight on until they reach hive and can transition to a hive strength army. |
|
|
| GleaM United States. May 10 2012 03:55. Posts 198 | Profile # |
| There are fourm guidelines for a reason. This is a long, eloquent QQ thread that should realistically be removed. |
|
|
| derpinator May 10 2012 04:06. Posts 74 | Profile # |
On May 10 2012 03:55 GleaM wrote:
There are fourm guidelines for a reason. This is a long, eloquent QQ thread that should realistically be removed.
The forum here is for discussion and that includes QQ. Besides, terrans have real good reason to cry about TvP its an absolutely abyssmal match up. Ive been winning allot of TvP's lately purely because I go 11/11 rax and pull workers. Fuck you blizzard, fuck you in the asshole.
User was warned for this post |
|
|
| Durp Canada. May 10 2012 04:07. Posts 2845 | Profile Blog # |
What I don't understand is why every Terran player in every single Terran thread believes that some adjustment to the warpgate mechanic will fix the matchup/finally make them win TvPs.
Like every other matchup in the game, with every difficulty it presents, the community works towards beating it (or steals builds from Korean pros- you say potato, I say potawto).
Rather than trying to "fix the protoss race," just try to become better players. While yes, + Show Spoiler +3 of the 4 current Code-S finalists are Protoss
While I realize the problem most people see in the comment "We do agree that if both sides take few to no losses going into the late game, protoss can have an advantage.", most people are only reading what they want to:
It reads "Protoss can have an advantage," not Protoss does
It reads "if both sides take few to no losses." With the assumption (and a fair one at that) that both players macro at the same level, if you've done no damage to your opponent you're not outplaying them. As such, if you lose, you just lost. No imbalance, you just did not play better than them.
TL:DR Try to adjust your play to match the current trends of Protoss, rather than trying to adjust Protoss balance to match what you need to win TvP |
| | SOOOOOooooOOOOooooOOOOoo Many BANELINGS!! |
|
|
 Empyrean May 10 2012 04:08. Posts 16299 | Profile Blog # |
So this thread has kind of escalated into a balance discussion, so I'll be closing it <_<
Do remember that the blog section isn't a place to circumvent strategy forum guidelines, though, so please don't open this thread there. |
| |
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
