|
On August 12 2010 05:18 naonao wrote: How is this any different from a terran with a vulture/tank composition being able to switch to goliaths once scouting carriers in scbw? because most terrans couldn't control goliaths like flash could but you make a vaild point.
|
YOUR MOM is too flexible lolololololol. Seriously though, if terran is flexible what about zerg? He can switch units if your weak to them yeah. But so can anyone else. Protoss has got chrono boost, and warpgates which are really flexible.
|
Jesus tapdancing Christ. You guys are seriously out of control with how much you're leaping down this guy's throat for his blog, and this is coming from a Terran player. I sort of agree with him, but perhaps not to the extent in which he would want a change in the next expansion.
Calm the fuck down, ladies and gents.
|
United States10774 Posts
On August 13 2010 06:11 VorcePA wrote: Jesus tapdancing Christ. You guys are seriously out of control with how much you're leaping down this guy's throat for his blog, and this is coming from a Terran player. I sort of agree with him, but perhaps not to the extent in which he would want a change in the next expansion.
Calm the fuck down, ladies and gents. Haha yeah, seriously. So many Terran users are damn sensitive. Sorry that a lot of people find ZvT and PvT relatively hard :o
|
Im a toss user and I find this blog dumb. go figure!
|
United States10774 Posts
On August 13 2010 06:15 Hawk wrote: Im a toss user and I find this blog dumb. go figure! It's dumb in the sense that he's a little extreme, but I do agree with some points to a certain extent. In my opinion at least.
|
Keep in mind that I was repeatedly saying that this is the type of change that should be made for future expansions when balance is significantly overhauled. Moreover, that I made this a blog post because it was a quick thought and not a well-formed argument worthy of the SC2 forums-- the arguments mad here will help me make that eventual post good :D Thanks Hawk! You've been a bro.
Obviously the type of things I've been saying would be too much if implemented into the game exactly as it is now. I shouldn't have started off the blog with a specific example of a game and while still annoyed-- as it put everyone on the defensive from the start-- inhibiting useful discussion.
That being said, it was my blog and I figured the TL community could understand the fact that I was looking at what i perceive to be a problem and proposing possible solutions-- not necessarily perfect ones or ones that I balance tested and think are great.
Edit: And I have explained again and again how GOLIATHS in BW were a perfectly well designed counter to carriers.
They were on the ground. They had shorter range, and had to get an upgraded to get decent range whatsoever against carriers.
Vikings require none of that. Carriers could also exploit high-ground/open-air etc against goliaths, whereas vikings are ata.
Also, different game is different.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 13 2010 06:25 Ndugu wrote: Edit: And I have explained again and again how GOLIATHS in BW were a perfectly well designed counter to carriers.
They were on the ground. They had shorter range, and had to get an upgraded to get decent range whatsoever against carriers.
Vikings require none of that. Carriers could also exploit high-ground/open-air etc against goliaths, whereas vikings are ata.
Also, different game is different. Most of these seem to just fall into the fact that Vikings are a better AtA unit than Goliaths, and seem to have little to do with the flexibility of production methods.
|
I can only observe how it works in SCBW, but I think the real issue here is that Terrans can switch units with considerably less impact on their economy than Zergs or Protosses. Switching between Bio and Mech is cheap in unit cost. Switching between mass producing Tanks + Vultures (anti-ground) and Gols (anti-air) is cheap in unit cost and tech. That's basically it for Terrans (not a lot of Ghost / Wraith / BC strategies used).
Protoss has Carrier switch, which is expensive (unit cost and tech). If it fails, it's GG.
Zergs can go Mutas / Lurkers / Ultras. All are expensive. Once you go for one, you won't have gas to switch to the other.
|
On August 13 2010 07:52 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 06:25 Ndugu wrote: Edit: And I have explained again and again how GOLIATHS in BW were a perfectly well designed counter to carriers.
They were on the ground. They had shorter range, and had to get an upgraded to get decent range whatsoever against carriers.
Vikings require none of that. Carriers could also exploit high-ground/open-air etc against goliaths, whereas vikings are ata.
Also, different game is different. Most of these seem to just fall into the fact that Vikings are a better AtA unit than Goliaths, and seem to have little to do with the flexibility of production methods. vikings are probably the weakest anti-air amongst the tier 1 air units actually. i think phoenix/muta are far more flexible and go even, or better, with vikings per cost.
|
Yeah but vikings absurd range means that they can take down things from a safe distance, pheonix muta are not that effective against colossus or even carriers/void rays simply because they are more vulnerable to stalker and sentry fire. They are also dedicated anti massive whereas pheonix and muta are anti-anti-armour or anti light.
|
On August 13 2010 06:16 OneOther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 06:15 Hawk wrote: Im a toss user and I find this blog dumb. go figure! It's dumb in the sense that he's a little extreme, but I do agree with some points to a certain extent. In my opinion at least.
im sure it something that will be explored in future patches but the original thing was pure hyperbole. even elite players exaggerate the shit out of everything and complain. look at idra. I certainly do trust his opinion on balance a bit more than others, but when you have like a 7:1 win:loss in every matchup it's kind of hard to listen to him sit there and complain about it.
everything should be explored for balance reasons, but two weeks past release is hardly enough time to get a good sample size for anything. vikes seem to be pretty easily dealt with if you do proper scouting + unit composition.
it really should be around a month before any kind of balance patching comes out
|
On August 13 2010 09:54 Slayer91 wrote: Yeah but vikings absurd range means that they can take down things from a safe distance, pheonix muta are not that effective against colossus or even carriers/void rays simply because they are more vulnerable to stalker and sentry fire. They are also dedicated anti massive whereas pheonix and muta are anti-anti-armour or anti light. other races have different ways of dealing with colossi and carriers. all terran has is the viking.
|
On August 12 2010 22:13 Ndugu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 12:23 Impervious wrote: What, exactly, is your point?
I didn't pick terran cause I felt it was the strongest race..... I still feel that Zerg probably takes that one, not by sheer power, but by speed and maneuverability. I picked it because it felt like it was the most versatile. Regardless of the situation, there are usually several different, good responses, while Z and P felt lacking to me. Not underpowered, just less options available.
I don't see how reactors doubling the production rate of vikings or hellions are a bad thing, they take nearly as long to build as a new facility, they are relatively expensive, and prevent you from using a tech lab to get the more specialized units, as well as the upgrades..... I will explain one last time, as I prepare to make this into a non-blog post again. This game has hard counters. HARD counters. It is a fact of life and I am assuming it will continue to be one. For example, the immortal. It does 50 damage to armored, but is balanced by its crap range of 5 and slow speed, which means that even stalkers can kite it. You have to micro it, and I think to a certain extent it is designed to be used alongside warp prisms. It is also balanced by a very long build time, and the fact that you will have to throw down an additional robotics facility and wait for it to build before you can produce 2x immortals at a time. For Hellions and Vikings, you will always have a factory or Starport, at least one, as a part of any reasonable build once you get past mid-game. As a result, Terran can pump out Vikings to wtfpwn armored/massive air units without making any additional investment in terms of making additional buildings, procuring additional research, etc. It's just make Vikings off of the reactor starport you already have and win. In the current game, THIS IS NOT OVERPOWERED. It's not overpowered because people won't go carriers. People won't go Collosi (for long) as they will switch to templar tech when you get vikings. ETC I am simply saying it is bad design. The ability to MASS hard-counter units, without going out of your way as Terran makes Tech paths for Protoss and Zerg non-viable. An example of good design is the Thor. It has a lot of trade-offs for its ability to counter mass air, such as its slow movement, long build time, and the requirement for an armory. It won't always just casually be ready to make when you see a spire-- you have to take time and make an investment to counter mutas. Once you make that investment, the Zerg player can either micro very very hard and keep using them, or must stop making mutas. That is how countering works. You make a time and money investment and when the time comes, it pays off in allowing you to have units that give you an advantage over your enemies units, not a result of physical skill, but of your ability to adapt and plan. For Vikings, that is not the case. The design of the Hellion, where you have to get the research on a tech lab before being able to double-pump upgraded hellions, is a good one. You cant instantly wtfpwn light units and you can do quite well against lings with micro pre-upgrade. It introduces the trade-off of "How fast do I want my hellions? Do I want to grab the upgrade or double-pump them? Do I need to build a 2nd factory so I can do both". I suggest that in the future Vikings return to 8+6, and an upgrade to increase their damage to armored appears on the tech lab (perhaps give Raven's seeker missile for free in exchange lol). This way, if a Protoss player sneaks Carriers or Collosi, the Terran player can't instantly switch from reactored medivacs to reactored, hard-counter vikings. It takes a time investment. You shouldn't always just be able to hard-counter a unit as soon as you see it. As Protoss and Zerg you have to scout and pre-emptively adapt to your opponents army. As Terran, you are granted too much flexibility. I played Terran for a while and I was amazed that I could build one of each production building (extremely fast teching) and have an army strong enough to expand. Can you imagine a Protoss player building a gateway, a robotics facility, and a stargate, and then having enough army to push out and expand? Obviously different races are different, and I think that down the line 1-1-1 won't be viable because players will adapt to have MUCH stronger early pressure Korean style. But once it is late game, Terran can make any unit when the need arises. Without any investment, buildings, tech, or research.
And can't you use this type of knowledge to your advantage? Make 1 Colossus, make sure I know its there, and then switch to obs production out of your robo facility, to scare me into making 6-10 (or more) vikings. Meanwhile, you're saving gas for more HT for storms (thanks to your awesome ability to hide tech buildings anywhere, and the ability to warp-in anywhere as well, with enough energy for a storm once the upgrade finishes), and I no longer have as many Ghosts for EMP..... GG.....
This game revolves around strategy, believe it or not. Start using some? Strategy revolves around more than just hard countering someone..... And, yes, Vikings hard-counter Carriers.....
My very first few games of the Beta revolved around a rush to 2 port banshees, expanding while harassing, because I saw the potential of the 1/1/1 playstyle, before it was even created..... I would be able to make whatever the fuck I needed with those buildings/addons that I had, and I had 2 bases with a pretty damn good economy, and my nat is pretty safe thanks to the cheap, salvageable bunkers. But there are a lot of things about this style of play that you can exploit.....
|
I don't know about you, but I like my Terrans flexible.
|
On August 13 2010 10:05 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 06:16 OneOther wrote:On August 13 2010 06:15 Hawk wrote: Im a toss user and I find this blog dumb. go figure! It's dumb in the sense that he's a little extreme, but I do agree with some points to a certain extent. In my opinion at least. im sure it something that will be explored in future patches but the original thing was pure hyperbole. even elite players exaggerate the shit out of everything and complain. look at idra. I certainly do trust his opinion on balance a bit more than others, but when you have like a 7:1 win:loss in every matchup it's kind of hard to listen to him sit there and complain about it. everything should be explored for balance reasons, but two weeks past release is hardly enough time to get a good sample size for anything. vikes seem to be pretty easily dealt with if you do proper scouting + unit composition. it really should be around a month before any kind of balance patching comes out
How would you use Carriers against a player that can, by the time you get carriers, reactor vikings? I am genuinely curious.
I mean, perhaps I can hide both the stargate, which shows what it is building, the fleet beacon and the carriers themselves long enough to build up a surprise army and push out.
Perhaps you just think carriers should be buffed to make this argument null? The 120 second build time is completely obscene and unparalleled by any unit in the game (except for the mothership oh god 160) even accounting for crono-boost. Particularly since they aren't very strong, it seems entirely arbitrary. Collosi only take 75 without crono-boost. Battlecruisers take 90, so perhaps a Carrier that is fully crono-boosted takes around 90.
Maybe spawning with a full set of interceptors would help.
|
Not gonna lie, from a T perspective, Carriers seem pretty useless atm.....
|
On August 13 2010 16:01 Impervious wrote: Not gonna lie, from a T perspective, Carriers seem pretty useless atm.....
From a Z and P perspective theyre pretty useless too.
|
I've used carriers a-plenty of times and have gotten wins out of them in diamond 1v1's. Useless nope, necessary? I might believe there might be a reason out there other then being AWESOME.
I still get pretty bummed how vikings are so tiny compared to carriers and they own them... But critical mass carriers will just floor vikings if mixed with templars. Can't always mass 1 unit and expect to turn the entire game around.
Ever seen that game of HasuObs vs TLO, that game was one of my favorite games.
|
On August 13 2010 16:18 Entropic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 16:01 Impervious wrote: Not gonna lie, from a T perspective, Carriers seem pretty useless atm..... From a Z and P perspective theyre pretty useless too.
In PvP almost every unit seems useless atm...
And in ZvP they aren't nearly as bad, as Void Rays do pretty well versus corrupters, particularly if they choose to focus fire the carriers first. Once a few Void Rays get charged and start wtfpwning the corrupters, your Carriers will end up pretty safe. Kinda like how a Terran could micro some Vikings to try and protect his battlecruisers vs corrupters.
Moreover, blink stalkers would be a great way to protect your carriers from corrupters, since, unlike Terran, Zerg don't have marauders. No unit except Ultralisks is going to MASSIVELY annihilate your stalkers for cost.
Sure, they still aren't good enough, it seems, due to sheer weakness. But with some slight, obvious buffs (shorter build time to 90 like battlecruiser (Yes, crono-boost exists, that doesnt mean that all our units should build slower to make up for it), spawn with full interceptors, etc. Carriers would be fine in PvZ.
Carriers would have to be VERY strong before they could be viable against vikings in PvT.
|
|
|
|