|
Hi, I'd like to discuss the new terran lategame 3.8 gave us, because i feel like it's been surprisingly left aside. I'm terran myself.
1) What's new
- BC : the tactical jump and yamato spell are both abilities with cooldown, removing the BC's energy bar. The CD is a minute or so for both, and yamato still needs to be researched.
- Raven : turret damage up to 24 every 0.56 seconds for 50 energy over 7 seconds, still benefits the armor upgrade from the Ebay. New upgrade in the SP tech lab that increases the radius of the missile by 30%, and the tracking range by 50%.
2) What does if means
Overall, those are insane buffs for late game sky terran. I'm gonna purposely not talk about the liberator nerf and the banshee speed upgrade buff : how does those help or not late game skyterran is yet to be seen.
ABOUT THE BC : yamato and tactical jump being on separate cooldown without energy is a huge deal. It means you can use them both in a fight if you didn't waste them for some reason.
- it's good because : HTs can't feedback BCs anymore. Both stalkers, void rays and tempests deal quite well with the BCs, so the energy bar removal is a good thing, because it makes the HT a little less of the all purpose caster against terran lategame. It's also good because it give BCs some counterplay against abduct. Because BCs are invulnerable while tactical jumping, abduct is a spell that now forces micro out of the opponent while disableling them for a few seconds (and dealing damage to them if your opponent doesn't micro properly. The tactical jump is therefore a very elegent counter to abduct without weakening it against skytoss.
- it's bad because : This made the most expensive capital ship in the game (save the mothership) the best and most abusive harass unit in the game, while it also encourages turtle. If you're in a late game situation as terran, the best strategy is now to move out on the map only with your BCs (preferably at the edges of the map) and attack a base : if your opponent attacks your frontline, TP back, and if he chases your BCs, spamm your yamatos and TP out. With 300 damage, you will be able to kill of expensive units or structures, then TP back behind turrets and repeat every minute. This encourages late game terran to sit behind a wall of turrets and PFs, while using BCs every minute to win the "split map ressources depletion race".
ABOUT THE RAVEN : the raven is now extremely usefull caster early, mid and late game.
- it's good because : The turret gives raven a lot of diverse utility. It deals an extreme amount of damage over a very short time, making it both an excellent unit to defend small runbies when playing mech, as well as giving hellion/cyclones comps a insane increase in frontline fighting power. The upgraded missile is extremely powerfull in late game situations. The upgrade gives ravens a zoning spell that forces the opponent to micro, while costing a lot of energy.
- it's bad because : Raven harass is incredibly abusive. The turret 2shots drones, it costs only 50 energy, can kill a queen on its own. It's a free and safe harass tool against zerg, and somewhat against terran because if you are chased by vikings, casting a turret on the ground will force vikings to abandon the chase. Static defense doesn't help since you can cast it from 3 range, while the turret itself has 6 range : you can't build 5 spores per bases. Raven openers shut down banshee openers so hard it's laughable. Casting a turret under a banshee will nearly kill it on its own : the turret 5 shots a banshee, while firing each 0.56 secs with 6 range. It's very hard to escape with your banshee alive. Ravens are massable very early with mech play. I'm waiting for some pro to show some very abusive raven builds, but in TvT, you can play mech by opening 1/1/1 raven and constantly producing ravens out of your SP. The missile makes late game TvZ very, very OP. Casting it on any unit zerg has that isn't at the limit of the seeker cast range will secure a hit nearly all the time. 5 ravens with energy can obliterate a zerg army engaging a terran army.
3) Personnal opinion
"Free and safe" damage is boring in SC2. Both SHs in HOTS and 15 flat range tempest with revelation pre 3.8 are very frustrating to play against. When you have units that can assure you that, if you stay in a defensive stance, you'll be able to win a ressource depletion race encourages camping. Right now terran lategame with skyterran tends to go into that direction. It's very paradoxal because the tempest can't deal free damage where thors are, which was the main weakness of mech versus protoss (getting kited all around the map). So one could think the dev team got that free damage is bad for the game. Also terran is already the race that benefits the most from staying behind static defense, and both those late game units encourages terrans to play full turtle late game, to the point where it may become very suffocating for TvZ and TvT matchups.
Both the BC and the raven rely on "free and safe" damage, respectively by split-pushing => yamato => tactical jump back home, and by casting turrets into mineral lines that don't cost anything. In the case of the raven, the strength of this mechanic opens the way for massing ravens very early on in TvZ and TvT : you deal free damage all game long into going full turtle late game, and you'll already have an insane number of your late game "big fights caster". I'm much more on the fence concerning the missile. On the one hand, i hate the fact that it deals "instaneously casted assured damage", i feel that's what makes the parasitic bomb so poorly designed and frustrating. On the other hand, the spell costs 125 energy, which doesn't allow for a PDD afterwards, and the raven has no energy recovery mechanism. Overall it may be too strong because it requires a lot of micro from your opponent not to see his whole army blow up in late game situations.
In conclusion, i'd say that : - the raven may not only be OP, but the design of the unit is wrong. If you have a caster that's very strong in every situation very early on, while obliterating whole armies late game, it makes it very massable. The raven became a "terran viper", it's a swiss knife that's extremely strong in a lot of situations. But you don't need to "be T3" like zerg to start building them. The raven can't be massable and very strong early game if it's so strong late game. Or else we'll see the raven be the WOL infestor of mech. Also, it's a very frustrating unit to play against because it can kill workers for free. - the BC's issue is that it's a capital ship that's a harass unit, while being quite meh in frontal fights. Thors, vikings, corruptors, stalkers, hydras, vipers, tempests, void rays counter BCs in frontal fights so hard that they're quite bad in those situations. So if the terran's most expansive late game unit is a harass unit that can deal free damage, of course terrans are gonna go full turtle "let's exhaust the map's ressources while i shoot your shit for free with yamatos then TP behind turrets every minute"
4) Propositions to solve those issues
+ Show Spoiler + => RAVEN - turret damage from 24 over 7 seconds to 14 damage over 10 seconds, cast range nerfed from 3 to 2 - missile upgrade from 30% radius and 50% tracking range to 30% radius and 30% cast range
This means the raven will have to commit more when casting a turret, which in turn nerfs the "free safe harass" raven can perform on mineral lines. For early fights, the turret will help defend a position, but will be less of a burst damage ability, allowing the opponent to get away from the turret. The missile upgrade nerf should allow some fast units to outrun the missile if it's casted too early, while the strength of the missile stays the same.
=> BC - tactical jump and yamato share the same cooldown - native armor from 3 to 4
This means you won't be able to both TP out of any situation after dealing massive damage. This should prevent abusive strats relying on split pushing with BCs, yamato-ing and then cast tactical jump behind turrets. The armor buff would bring the BC's armor from 3 to 4, making it much better against early/mid game units, which will in turn make it much better at winning frontal fights.
Thanks for reading, what's your opinion on the subject?
|
Actually I had not played in a while and didn't know the extent of the raven buff so I played a ZvT when the exact situation you described happened: turrets in my mineral lines (but ok with some roach patrols though), and about 6 missiles went off on my roach/rav/ultra/hydra/viper army. I was obviously off creep and pretty much lost 2/3 of it instantly. I felt like there was not much I could do tbh.
I agree the design is a bit strange but at the same time, even though I m Z myself, I dont like the viper and blinding cloud. It s either you land all of those on the mech army and you wreck it or you don't and you get wrecked. Now the seeker missile adds another binary situation to the Terran but it still isnt that fun to play. Both those units (raven and viperà should be redesigned I think.
As for BC I haven't encountered the situtation yet but your analysis looks solid.
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
as protoss i have no problem with current bc no matter how huch PF terran build i will just a move with stalkers and win...
|
As a Terran player I agree that auto turrets, the upgraded seeker missile and tactical jump are all too strong.
I suggest reverting auto turret damage to pre 3.8 stats and keep the range increase of the seeker missile upgrade but the remove the other affect.
I agree with your suggestion of putting tactical jump and yamoto on the same timer. It would remove the abusive use and make for more interesting decision making, use yamota or tactical jump depending on the situation, instead of both all the time.
|
"Free and safe" damage is boring in SC2. Both SHs in HOTS and 15 flat range tempest with revelation pre 3.8 are very frustrating to play against
Very important concept that Blizzard apparently doesn't understand. Else they wouldn't be pushing for these types of mechanics.
The issue in it self is not just that games get stalled out - which Blizzard thinks (hence why they try to make these "free units" harass oriented").
No the issue is that the interaction it creates are boring and onesided. In order to do damage, you need to put yourself in a position where you can "fuck up" if the opponent plays very well.
|
Good analysis. Though I'd prefer an overhaul of spell casters, I think your solutions are also eloquent and slick, Spell casters in SC2 have been so problematic from the release from the WOL (Vortex, Forcefield, Fungal Growth, Snipe, ect..) that Blizzard really needs to look closely at how they should act in general.
All the free damage leads to people turtling and just abusing their free units that have limited micro opportunites. The Swarmhost wars in HOTS being the zenith of poor game design. They way free units are implemented is very close to power without gameplay.
|
Thanks for this in depth analysis.
i agree with your conclusions about how to modify the BC and Raven. Once these changes are made... if its discovered Terran is too weak versus other races i recommend buffing some ground units.
On December 11 2016 01:50 BronzeKnee wrote: All the free damage in the damage leads to people turtling and just abusing their free units that have limited micro opportunites. The Swarmhost wars in HOTS being the zenith of poor game design. They way free units are implemented is very close to power without gameplay. ya, true.
|
Why are you so assertive about what's bad, and what's abusive, considering there is clearly not enough time nor enough high level games to back up what you are saying ?
You seem to be sure about a lot of things... raven harass being completly abusive, late game skyterran being a freewin vs Zerg, BC being a completly insane late-game harass unit. Until I see pro terrans reliably abusing raven harass or mass BC for at least 2 months, I wouldn't consider there might be an issue.
For now, let's focus on the positive : Blizzard noticed 2 (almost) unused units that have great gameplay potential, and thus buffed them. Good initiative by Blizzard !
|
I have managed to see times, where BC's became harassive op. Just wow
|
On December 11 2016 05:26 SiroKO wrote: Why are you so assertive about what's bad, and what's abusive, considering there is clearly not enough time nor enough high level games to back up what you are saying ?
You seem to be sure about a lot of things... raven harass being completly abusive, late game skyterran being a freewin vs Zerg, BC being a completly insane late-game harass unit. Until I see pro terrans reliably abusing raven harass or mass BC for at least 2 months, I wouldn't consider there might be an issue.
For now, let's focus on the positive : Blizzard noticed 2 (almost) unused units that have great gameplay potential, and thus buffed them. Good initiative by Blizzard !
You don't need high level games to the see the obvious. And you certainly don't need two months to understand that. Remember when that company with good initiative, err... Blizzard, immediately nerfed the Thor after a single high level series between Nony and Thorzain in the middle of a tournament?
Even Blizzard knows you don't need months of high level games to see the obvious, so let's end that narrative right now because it is false and always has been.
Taken to the logical extreme it is this: Imagine Rock could beat Scissors and Paper. You wouldn't request two months of data to see how the game has changed . In fact, you wouldn't even need to see one single game. And the argument he is making is only different in degree, not in principal.
We've seen games. That is all we need... unless of course you have a real argument why the Raven and BC are okay, which they very well might be. But let's just not push false narratives and pretend they are legitimate arguments for doing nothing.
|
If BCs are so OP, why is almost noone using them at pro level? Why do you think that "it's the time to talk about" a problem that doesn't really exist at all? Or you think that all pro Terrans are just so far behind your expert analysis. I haven't seen a single BC in a streamed game in 2016. Surely, I haven't watched all of them, but I still sense that there is a trend to it ...
edit:
On December 11 2016 05:51 BronzeKnee wrote: Even Blizzard knows you don't need months of high level games to see the obvious, so let's end that narrative right now because it is false and always has been.
No, let's specifically not do that. Let's watch how the pros play and make conclusions based on that, not based on essays someone made up in their mind to support nerfing races that happen not be the race they like to play.
|
I have seen BC's in many games. And Stelok, former pro player posted directly above me... saying the same thing and commenting on the abusiveness.
Better yet: try them out in a game! Build a few, send them to harass. Right when they are about to die, use Tactical Jump to safety, and repair them.
Rinse and Repeat.
Counters hardly matter, you'll almost always get some damage done before using Tactical Jump if you time it right. And if you have time to Yamato before jumping, you'll get even more damage done.
I'd be happy to play test it with you.
On December 11 2016 05:55 opisska wrote:
No, let's specifically not do that. Let's watch how the pros play and make conclusions based on that, not based on essays someone made up in their mind to support nerfing races that happen not be the race they like to play.
Here is the problem with this argument, it ignores the ability to think. You don't need to touch a hot stove to learn. Let me show you actual evidence of why you are wrong:
Remember this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/498748-the-warp-prism-creates-a-mediocre-dynamic
Streamer Winter said Warp Prisms were too strong. And what happened to them?
How could he possibly have predicted they were too strong without tons of pro play to make conclusions about? People like you were saying exactly what you are saying now in that very thread months ago. But they were wrong, and Winter was right because the proof is always in the pudding: Warp Prisms got nerfed.
Was that just a coincidence? Because it has happened a lot more than once. And the answer is no, he thought about why it was too strong and presented evidence. Thus, the argument that is necessary to see something X amount of times being played by X players before you know it can happen, is ignorant. You can make inferences about how the meta will change before it changes. Before any pro even plays a game. I can show you the paper trails.
It can be just as easy as knowing that gasoline will explode if lit with a match, I don't need to see people doing that to understand the chemistry and realize that gasoline is explosive. Understanding game design does the same thing for you, you realize things without actually having to test them, because game design is a science too. Just as I said with my example above, I don't need to test, even once, what happens if Rock counters Paper, I know the results in my head already, it breaks the game.
So the call now being made is that Ravens and BC's are too strong. Let's see if they get nerfed (or their counters are buffed, one of those things will happen) so I can quote this thread later when someone else invariably pushes this false narrative again.
If you want to argue against what he is saying, tell us why his analysis is flawed, why the unit interactions are okay or provide some proof "actually a player can X to stop BC harass quite easily. I watched Byun do it by doing..." or some logical explanation. Don't just tell us he is wrong because we need more time.
|
Interesting read. Good pointing out "free damage".
That BC suggestion is nice. I haven't though about that. The Raven suggestion is ok, I don't like Raven neither before or after.
|
I can't "provide you proof" exactly because the issue does not exist. If this was an actual problem, we would have some high level games to draw arguments from. But we have none. Zero. The impossibility to provide actual games to the discussion doesn't prove your point, it proves mine!
|
ye, the BC's lategame is the issue on some maps I still can't figure out the air protoss composition to trade cost-effectivly with them, like in this topic yamato - tp back, and it 2 shots from yamato almost any unit of protoss
|
|
On December 11 2016 05:57 BronzeKnee wrote:I have seen BC's in many games. And Stelok, former pro player posted directly above me... saying the same thing and commenting on the abusiveness. Better yet: try them out in a game! Build a few, send them to harass. Right when they are about to die, use Tactical Jump to safety, and repair them. Rinse and Repeat. Counters hardly matter, you'll almost always get some damage done before using Tactical Jump if you time it right. And if you have time to Yamato before jumping, you'll get even more damage done. I'd be happy to play test it with you. Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 05:55 opisska wrote:
No, let's specifically not do that. Let's watch how the pros play and make conclusions based on that, not based on essays someone made up in their mind to support nerfing races that happen not be the race they like to play. Here is the problem with this argument, it ignores the ability to think. You don't need to touch a hot stove to learn. Let me show you actual evidence of why you are wrong: Remember this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/498748-the-warp-prism-creates-a-mediocre-dynamicStreamer Winter said Warp Prisms were too strong. And what happened to them? How could he possibly have predicted they were too strong without tons of pro play to make conclusions about? People like you were saying exactly what you are saying now in that very thread months ago. But they were wrong, and Winter was right because the proof is always in the pudding: Warp Prisms got nerfed. Was that just a coincidence? Because it has happened a lot more than once. And the answer is no, he thought about why it was too strong and presented evidence. Thus, the argument that is necessary to see something X amount of times being played by X players before you know it can happen, is ignorant. You can make inferences about how the meta will change before it changes. Before any pro even plays a game. I can show you the paper trails. It can be just as easy as knowing that gasoline will explode if lit with a match, I don't need to see people doing that to understand the chemistry and realize that gasoline is explosive. Understanding game design does the same thing for you, you realize things without actually having to test them, because game design is a science too. Just as I said with my example above, I don't need to test, even once, what happens if Rock counters Paper, I know the results in my head already, it breaks the game. So the call now being made is that Ravens and BC's are too strong. Let's see if they get nerfed (or their counters are buffed, one of those things will happen) so I can quote this thread later when someone else invariably pushes this false narrative again. If you want to argue against what he is saying, tell us why his analysis is flawed, why the unit interactions are okay or provide some proof "actually a player can X to stop BC harass quite easily. I watched Byun do it by doing..." or some logical explanation. Don't just tell us he is wrong because we need more time.
Get off your high horse, and stop using syllogism. Starcraft 2 is an highly complex game, with an extremly high number of correlated variables. You can't reduce it to an highschool math or chemistry equation.
If anything, you could compare Starcraft 2 analysis to an experimental science. Experimental science is science where you start by assuming some theoretical hypothesis, then use a statistically significant number of practical evidences to back up what you are saying, and only then you can validate or not your initial hypothesis.
You say BC are too strong ? I say BC are almost impossible to transition to without being exposed to some timings, plus they are hard-countered by tempests (TvP) and decently countered by corruptors / vipers / infestors (TvZ). This debate brings us nowhere because there are no games to back up what we are saying.
Of course you can have a personal opinion that is mostly based on a limited personal experience and guessing, but in this case, you have to assume that those are nothing more than uncertain guessings. But you do not, you disguise your totally uncertain guessings as facts, which is quite irritating.
|
So...going to give my thoughts as someone that originally innovated the lategame raven accumulation even back since wings of liberty.
The raven and BC are Terran's late game. What blizzard has done is actually give Terran a lategame again in LOTV. Terran did not have a lategame for the past year after liberators and ravens were both nerfed. You basically were screwed every game that went past 15 min and it was terribly frustrating as a Terran.
With that said...you cannot discuss ravens at all if you are not willing to also bring up how absurd units such as the swarmhost, tempest, carrier, and infestor are for the other races.
The other races have INSANE lategame units compared to the equivalent that Terran just received. Swarmhosts alone are still broken and do not even require energy to spam versus mech.
Infestors now essentially have cloak while being able to cast all of their abilities. This was not a small buff - it was an insane buff because they are permanently cloaked now after the burrow upgrade.
Carriers have no counter in the game - OTHER than massing BCS with yamato. All previous counters to the carrier were nerfed - cyclone AA/damage/lock-on nerfed. Widow mine nerfed indirectly through interceptors that cost no money now. Even a bio Terran can have trouble versus carriers due to their insane cost efficiency and how cheap interceptors are. For reference 8 interceptors now cost less than 1 marine (40 minerals < 50). There is something wrong here.
Tempest are 6 supply now - and randomly received an arbitrary buff to make them even more obnoxious and they are still massable.
So now that we have that out of the way let's discuss ravens and BCS. These units have now equaled out the playing field and made it so Terran is NO LONGER AN AUTOMATIC LOSS IN LATEGAME.
A lot of people are probably losing games to Terran lategame now and being surprised that it wasn't just an automatic win from making 10 vipers or 10 carriers.
Now here is where i AGREE with anyone that is making valid arguments about the abusiveness of mass ravens. Ravens auto-turrets are actually stronger than units that cost money. They are just like swarmhost locusts. Not as bad because they do require energy unlike locusts, but still not good.
Back in HOTS when ravens and swarmhosts were shown to be mega abusive and ridiculous, as well as mass air i proposed very easy solutions to these problems that were ignored by blizzard and most of the community.
All air units in the game and units like swarmhosts, infestors, and ravens should receive a supply increase to dissuade them from being the ultimate end game stalemate options.
Imagine if ravens were 3 or 4 supply instead of 2. You would have less of them in a maxed out army. Same goes for carriers being 8 supply, BCS being 8 supply, etc.
The issue is though, this thread is basically irrelevant because you're only discussing nerfing Terran without correspondingly nerfing all of the other bullshit from the two other races. Mass carrier, mass swarmhost, mass infestor, and mass tempest are equal problems that must be adjusted along with the raven and potentially BC.
As for the BC, i am actually surprised this unit is not complete garbage anymore. lol.
edit: tl;dr version:
Cannot nerf raven/BC without nerfing corresponding bullshit from the other two races. Supply increase to all lategame units would help prevent massing carrier/bc/raven/tempest/swarmhost/infestor. BC the only counter to carrier for Terran - but probably could use higher cooldown on teleport.
|
On December 11 2016 07:07 SiroKO wrote:
Starcraft 2 is an highly complex game, with an extremly high number of correlated variables. You can't reduce it to an highschool math or chemistry equation.
Of course you can have a personal opinion that is mostly based on a limited personal experience and guessing, but in this case, you have to assume that those are nothing more than uncertain guessings. But you do not, you disguise your totally uncertain guessings as facts, which is quite irritating.
I disagree completely, SC2 is a simple game, and in this instance we can reduce the variables to manageable number as this thread is solely looking at unit interactions. So I am going to stay on my high horse, a syllogistic argument can be valid. And you've failed to show what premises of mines aren't valid.
Regardless of whether or not something is viable due to X or Y, when bad unit interactions exist, they need to be fixed because they could become a problem (remember the Mothership in WOL? It was never intended to be used in regular play, people said exactly what you said "no one can transition to it!" and then we got some pretty terrible interactions that... and it was fixed!). This isn't my personal experience and guessing, it is the game design. A lack of counterplay is terrible design. That statement is like saying we need oxygen to breath, it is proven. Psychology (and more on this in the threads I'll create later) explains to us what motivates people to do things and we know people like to play games with certain interactions. And there is little counterplay in BC harass that pushes people away. The syllogistic argument here is that good is defined by people enjoying the unit interaction and bad is defined by people not enjoying the unit interaction. The premises are true, so the conclusion is also true. There is a good reason that League had a game designer with Ph.D in Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience, because we know what motivates people to do things.
So you can disagree all you want, and talk about how this is "rocket science" that no one can understand, and think that random guessing is the only way to change the game and that no one can possibly predict with accuracy what can happen. So go ahead, light gasoline on fire to see if it is explosive, because you can't be bothered to the understand chemistry.
So what I like to do in response for myself collect opinions and see who is right. Because I follow the tenets of good game design, I am right, and thus I get to ride my high horse around and know I am right. So let's go on record right now regarding Tactical Jump and we can wait and find out.
|
|
|
|
|