-
Terran Versatility -- Why?
No, this isn't a "Terran is OP" QQ thread. I play Terran, so they're obviously UP and rock is IMBA. This is about discussing the rationale behind Terrans having so many flexible extraneous structures that simply give them versatility -- versatility that other races simply don't have. Let's go through the list of "atypical" structures for all races and what makes them atypical.
TERRAN
Command Center -- allows worker units to load and unload to keep them safe, or for transport.
Orbital Command -- an upgrade to an existing structure that turns it into a versatile caster with both defensive (anti-supply block, scan, MULE) and offensive (MULE repair, scan for vision of high ground) capabilities.
Planetary Fortress -- an upgrade to an existing structure that turns it into a high powered stationary defense.
Supply Depot -- can be lowered to allow units to pass.
Bunker -- repairable, salvageable stationary defense that can hold infantry units.
Sensor Tower -- gives Terrans 'sight' in a wide range.
PROTOSS
Pylons -- allow Protoss to Warp-in units within Pylon range. Thaat's it.
ZERG
Nydus Worm -- allows the Zerg to transport units quickly around the map.
Creep Tumors -- burrowed 'structures' that provide Creep and vision. A teensy bit hesitant on these, because hey, if we count them, why not count Terrans' Auto-Turrets?
Spine & Spore Crawlers -- can uproot. Again a little hesitant to give Zerg this because half of the Terran buildings can 'uproot'... and have like 5 times more flexibility while uprooted than these two.
We can argue about the specifics, but there's a pretty obvious trend forming here, isn't there? Now I'm not saying that Protoss and Zerg races aren't interesting by any means -- they have plenty of fun and unique racial mechanics. Where Terran structures burn down, Protoss have shields and Zerg regenerate. Terrans can repair, but Protoss can teleport their units around the map, and Zerg have flexible production via Larvae. I'm not saying they aren't creative.
What I'm saying is that the Terrans are... overly creative in individual cases. And what I'm asking is, why? This is a potential problem, because it gives the Terran player too many options, and it gives the Terran race too much depth outside of its units. Just look at the number of pros who've started using Planetary Fortresses as tools for area denial once they've reached the supply cap. Look at the versatility of the Orbital Command in allowing MULEs to land on the high ledge on LT to repair a Thor or Siege Tank. Supply Depots are now built in the middle of the mineral line, because that allows them to stay safe without getting in the way of your gatherers.
All of these options give players infinite depth to explore... depth that really isn't there for the other races. So, again, why? Was this a deliberate choice by Blizzard, in that it's supposed to be a characteristic of the Terran race to have gimmicky buildings that serve fun/gimmicky functions? Although that IS possible, I find it strange, because nothing about SC1's design hinted at it -- the only returning "atypical" structure being the Bunker with its non-standard mode of attack. All other weirdnesses are completely new and unprecedented. One possible argument could be that the Zerg replace weird buildings with weird units (Overlord, Queen), but it still seems disproportionate for the Terrans even so... and there's no remotely similar parallel for the Protoss.
So what do you guys think? Was this deliberate? Is it a creative oversight influenced by the priority to get Terrans right for the Terran-themed installment of the game? Should Blizzard be thinking about adding superfluous but fun mechanics to the Zerg and Protoss in the future to create more versatility in their respective playstyles, outside of managing units or simple macro?
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
Is it a creative oversight influenced by the priority to get Terrans right for the Terran-themed installment of the game?
I think so, yes.. much of the more or less gimmicky terran stuff makes lots of sense for the campaign, not least in contrast to zerg & protoss opponents.. combined with the customizability of your unit rooster in SP, it was made to give players lots of options in fairly straightforward ways.. and since they want MP and SP to overlap as far as possible, many of these gimmicks made it into MP (in the mule case it was the other way around but no matter..) this, while Z & P arguably got more straightforward stuff (with P we kind of saw them try and fail; soulhunter to dark-obelisk to tempest to crazy OP MS-version and several other things that have become a blurr)
Quote:
Should Blizzard be thinking about adding superfluous but fun mechanics to the Zerg and Protoss in the future to create more versatility in their respective playstyles, outside of managing units or simple macro?
its hard to answer this without getting specific, yet its sort of impossible to get specific too, but yes, i believe / hope this will be happening, because i can hardly see terran versatility getting "rolled back" in any way.
cant say what will happen, but hopefully expo MP content will bring more opportunities for Z and especially P to be creative with their playstyles.
... This might not be a representative snapshot of the metagame, but to me personally, terran versatility and customizability looks scarier right now than ever; whenever i have less than perfect intel on them, im quite uncertain of what to be afraid of, resulting in inevitable under-preparation for something, &/or over-preparation for something that isnt really comming, or is only comming on tiny scale.
even in high level play, terran early sneaky tech timings cannot be underestimated..
we'll probably figure ways to swing momentum back in our favor or at leat into balance. we have to. else, the sheer fear of terran versatility will make us passive and grant terrans a free general advantage.
... it might all lead into more sublte early action for opnents to terrans to try to at least gather relliable intel on whats to come.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
So what do you guys think? Was this deliberate? Is it a creative oversight influenced by the priority to get Terrans right for the Terran-themed installment of the game?
I think a bit of both. Deliberate because Blizzard developers envisioned Terrans as "versatile" and "gimmicky" from the very beginning, and an oversight because perhaps they've unwittingly given the Terran a strategic depth disproportianately greater to that of the other races.
Though the really interesting question is, how do you make Protoss and Zerg as tactically diverse without compromizing their racial identities?
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eligor
Though the really interesting question is, how do you make Protoss and Zerg as tactically diverse without compromizing their racial identities?
One idea I proposed back during the Beta, for Zerg specifically, was to allow them to morph individual Creep Tumors into different kinds of Tumors that would provide passive benefits in an aura around them. IE, allowing all nearby Zerg units to burrow regardless of upgrades, allowing all nearby Zerg units to burrow move, and so on and so forth.
I think there's quite a few ways for what you ask to be accomplished. If people want to use this thread to throw some ideas around, I suppose that's OK. :)
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
One idea I proposed back during the Beta, for Zerg specifically, was to allow them to morph individual Creep Tumors into different kinds of Tumors that would provide passive benefits in an aura around them. IE, allowing all nearby Zerg units to burrow regardless of upgrades, allowing all nearby Zerg units to burrow move, and so on and so forth.
I think there's quite a few ways for what you ask to be accomplished. If people want to use this thread to throw some ideas around, I suppose that's OK. :)
I remember that one! Something that deserves at least an implementation in a custom map (I'd do it myself but don't have a computer capable of running SC 2 at the moment).
By the way, what if all Protoss units with energy could freely transfer it between each other? They do share a psionic link after all... Is this a totally horrible idea or does it have some merit?
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
I understand that Terran buildings need to move faster to use the addon-swap thing, but why do their CCs need to move that fast? That makes a Terran able to float it inside unpassable terrain, save an expansion that is under attack much easier, etc.
The worst of it, is that the scanner and silo used to be add-ons, so that it's possible to snipe them. Now you must destroy the whole CC/Covert Ops to do the same, not to mention the PF.
I'm more worried about the effectivity of some Terran counters to Protoss units. It makes you think why exactly are you paying extra for your units.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eligor
By the way, what if all Protoss units with energy could freely transfer it between each other? They do share a psionic link after all... Is this a totally horrible idea or does it have some merit?
cool idea but not sure how to make it work; lwer cost units providign more energy to teh total pool can be a problem, (hello infinite storms with 1 HT in the field, and infinite use of MS-abilities)
... mostly, such a feature would open up for even more forcefield abuse; effectively block all counterattacks by land on main by leaving one sentry behind; since it has infinite energy from all the sentieres(/HT's) in main army.
a cool idea. maybe we can work with it, things that can help balance it out is adjusting the cooldwons on delicate abilities, and maybe adding a slight extra casting-time or cooldown for using that psionic link (when energy is low enough to warrant it)
... i too remember the idea of extending teh creeptumor concept.. its certainly a cool enough gimmick for camaign play, but for MP im not sure: being bound to creep, it feels a bit too limited to defense! maybe if verseers or some otehr unit could plant the special tumors, and creep jsust extended their duration and / or radius?
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
I personally don't think that many singleplayer 'gimmicks' carried over into MP. I mean, the whole Orbital Command deal was done practically for MP alone.
Supply depots being lowerable is, to me, not so much a singleplayer thing so much as just to make the game (multiplayer in mind, as well) more accessible for newbies. You wall with a Barracks in BW anyway, this way it's more intuitive.
Terran buildings being able to lift off is something from BW that they'd have a hard time getting rid of entirely since it's become such a big part of the Terrans' identity (although the Engineering Bay obviously didn't survive the SC2 transition with it).
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Yeah, I wonder why the engineering bay looks like it can fly when it actually can't.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eligor
I remember that one! Something that deserves at least an implementation in a custom map (I'd do it myself but don't have a computer capable of running SC 2 at the moment).
By the way, what if all Protoss units with energy could freely transfer it between each other? They do share a psionic link after all... Is this a totally horrible idea or does it have some merit?
Cool ideas and awsome thread BTW.
I can't really comment on Zerg, but what if Protoss could Shield transfer just like your energy transfer idea. Better yet, what if there was a dedicated unit that transfered both energy and shields. Kinda like a mobile shield battery that carried energy as well.
Probably would have to be made out of the robo bay or starport (depending on if its a flyer or not) so that players can't warp them in everywhere.
Mobile shield regen would definitely bring Archons into the light. And Energy transfer would just benifite Protoss play overall
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carsickness
Better yet, what if there was a dedicated unit that transfered both energy and shields. Kinda like a mobile shield battery that carried energy as well.
Probably would have to be made out of the robo bay or starport (depending on if its a flyer or not) so that players can't warp them in everywhere.
Mobile shield regen would definitely bring Archons into the light. And Energy transfer would just benifite Protoss play overall
You're right, it would add more flexibility to the Protoss force since you'll be able to choose which units to boost on the battlefield and why (for example whether to invest more energy into your spellcasters or more shields into fighting units, or whether to renovate the energy of your Templars or Sentries).
As for Archons, I've been thinking whether they may not be better server in SC 2 by being made into a (sort of) summonable unit, with greater stats that they have now but a vert limited lifespan (around 30 to 45 seconds in duration at most) at the end of which they would dissipate into nothingness (so the choice is between conserving your Templars for the sake of Psi-Storm or sacrificing them for a really quick bang on the battlefield that may give you the extra force to survive overwhelming odds).
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eligor
As for Archons, I've been thinking whether they may not be better server in SC 2 by being made into a (sort of) summonable unit, with greater stats that they have now but a vert limited lifespan (around 30 to 45 seconds in duration at most) at the end of which they would dissipate into nothingness (so the choice is between conserving your Templars for the sake of Psi-Storm or sacrificing them for a really quick bang on the battlefield that may give you the extra force to survive overwhelming odds).
If that where the case then i'de think that it should only take one Templar to do so. Cool idea. Would even be cool lore wise, ie: pissing off a Templar causes it to go super sayin for a short time :P
And combining two templars would obviously give you the more stable version.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
PROTOSS
Pylons -- allow Protoss to Warp-in units within Pylon range. Thaat's it.
Well cronoboost for all buildings is one more!
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Warp prism gives HUGE advantages. You can deploy your troops and punch your opponent quite hard. I think it should give you some PSI when it is in that power-field-deploying state. +8 food when deployed...that'd be sweet
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MuppZA
Well cronoboost for all buildings is one more!
This is a bit tricky, see. While on the surface plopping down "Nexus -- Chrono Boost" does seem appropriate, doing so makes it seem like the ratio between Terran and Protoss weird buildings is like 6:2 which isn't that bad (maybe), but in reality, the OC alone has four times the gimmick utility that the Nexus has. That and I also left out Terran Add-ons -- which are two weird mini-structures in and of themselves -- I also left out the ability to fly on Terran structures, which makes the CC, OC, Barracks, Fac, and Starport "weird" as well...
And while these are the only ones that COUNT, if we go back to the Beta and the pre-Beta we can definitely get a sense for Blizzard wanting to do this to the extreme. Remember how Starports could upgrade into Star Bases that could fly around and repair nearby air units? Remember how Missile Turrets could be Salvaged like Bunkers... and couldn't detect unless there was a Sensor Tower nearby? Remember how the Merc Haven used to allow Terrans to plop down up to 5 Reapers immediately?
These gimmicks aren't a concern because they don't add any depth to the game -- cause they're not in it, duh -- but they do make it more and more obvious that Blizzard put a lot more effort into finding fun dynamics and synergies for the Terran race than they did for the Zerg and Protoss ones.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
No, this isn't a "Terran is OP" QQ thread. I play Terran, so they're obviously UP and
rock is IMBA. This is about discussing the rationale behind Terrans having so many flexible extraneous structures that simply give them versatility -- versatility that other races simply don't have. Let's go through the list of "atypical" structures for all races and what makes them atypical.
TERRAN
Command Center -- allows worker units to load and unload to keep them safe, or for transport.
Planetary Fortress -- an upgrade to an existing structure that turns it into a high powered stationary defense.
Supply Depot -- can be lowered to allow units to pass.
Bunker -- repairable, salvageable stationary defense that can hold infantry units.
Sensor Tower -- gives Terrans 'sight' in a wide range.
The issue isn't versatility, but defense. Command centers can protect their SCVs. Planetary fortresses can do this but even better (1500 hp tower with high armor value). Supply depots let you completely block off your base. Bunkers are decent at defense. Sensor towers are often derided as not being worth their cost.
Quote:
Orbital Command -- an upgrade to an existing structure that turns it into a versatile caster with both defensive (anti-supply block, scan, MULE) and offensive (MULE repair, scan for vision of high ground) capabilities.
This (potentially much better than Chrono Boost), plus the command center's ability to carry SCVs while flying I find a bit worrisome. However, Scan has its downsides; it's there in part to make up for Ravens popping up only fairly late in the game. (Observers and overseers, while earlier in the game now than Ravens, are pretty expensive.)
Overall I'm thinking terrans are pretty heavily defense-focused. Being able to put supply depots under your SCVs helps protect them, for instance.
Quote:
PROTOSS
Pylons -- allow Protoss to Warp-in units within Pylon range. Thaat's it.
And that's huge. Let's not forget warp prisms either, but with the AoE nerf it seems players use pylons instead.
Quote:
ZERG
Nydus Worm -- allows the Zerg to transport units quickly around the map.
Creep Tumors -- burrowed 'structures' that provide Creep and vision. A teensy bit hesitant on these, because hey, if we count them, why not count Terrans' Auto-Turrets?
Creep gives speed bonuses in an AoE. Auto-Turrets don't do anything like that. Also, there's multiple ways of spreading creep.
Quote:
Spine & Spore Crawlers -- can uproot. Again a little hesitant to give Zerg this because half of the Terran buildings can 'uproot'... and have like 5 times more flexibility while uprooted than these two.
On the one hand, none of the terran defensive structures can move. On the other hand, rooting takes so long you really can't use it in combat. This is a real disappointment with the spore crawler.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carsickness
Cool ideas and awsome thread BTW.
Better yet, what if there was a dedicated unit that transfered both energy and shields. Kinda like a mobile shield battery that carried energy as well.
[...]
Mobile shield regen would definitely bring Archons into the light. And Energy transfer would just benifite Protoss play overall
I had been thinking about making Mothership's cloaking aura a bit more interesting by passively adding:
Increased shield and energy regeneration to units within it's Area Of Effect.
That would make the Mothership's cloak aura more interesting compared to the Arbitrer's. You know, everyone complains about Motherships and I would start by changing that.
About Other changes... I don't know, I think Massive recall is OK for me, Vortex looks cool, maybe it should also do something else.
Yet they should definitely add some sort of hyper beam like the planet cracker... (Independence day style!!!) which mechanics should it have?
Why not make it like the purifier's beam? something that takes some time to load and then deals a massive AoE damage? I think it wouldn't overlap with Psi Storm as it would be used mainly against buildings (you know units will have plenty of time to run away due to charging time, but they will have to choose whether to attack the mothership and risk to die if it fires before.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carsickness
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eligor
As for Archons, I've been thinking whether they may not be better server in SC 2 by being made into a (sort of) summonable unit, with greater stats that they have now but a vert limited lifespan (around 30 to 45 seconds in duration at most) at the end of which they would dissipate into nothingness (so the choice is between conserving your Templars for the sake of Psi-Storm or sacrificing them for a really quick bang on the battlefield that may give you the extra force to survive overwhelming odds).
If that where the case then i'de think that it should only take one Templar to do so. Cool idea. Would even be cool lore wise, ie: pissing off a Templar causes it to go super sayin for a short time :P
And combining two templars would obviously give you the more stable version.
Well, I'd rather bring back dark archons from Dark templars but with totally new spells, something that sinergizes with everything the protoss have...
I don't know... something that provides temporary AoE mind control?
maybe too much... or how about... or I don't know, heck! let's think about it!
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kimera757
And that's huge. Let's not forget warp prisms either, but with the AoE nerf it seems players use pylons instead.
My problem isn't balance, it's options. The more options you give one player, the higher his potential skill-cap.
Command Centers can load SCVs and fly. This allows them to A) retreat from pure-ground harassment, B) be used as an emergency wall before lifting off to its proper placement, C) lift off and fly to difficult-to-reach expansions that other races can't reach... why? Why do Terrans get so many options because their CC got an arbitrary, cool ability that people continue to find new ways to take advantage of?
Can Zerg do anything funky and unorthodox with their Hatchery? Nope. Can Protoss do anything unorthodox with their Nexus? Nope. And we haven't even gotten into the OC and PF upgrades, which provide countless new options ON TOP of what the CC already offered. Do you turtle around your main while teching up to some 1-base all-in while your PF provides the only defense you need? Do you get a PF on your nat? Do you get the PF on your third? Do you use PFs as area denial tools in the late game? Do you set up PFs to attack your opponent? I've seen all of these things work. And each one gives the Terran countless options -- NOT just in defense, but in offense as well.
During the beta no one ever thought to place their Supply Depots in the resource line, and now players are doing it, because there is room for them to be creative when buildings have "fun" abilities. Who knows what we'll see in the future? Meanwhile, we haven't really seen anything new done with Chrono Boost in a long time, we haven't really seen anything new done with Creep in a long time, we haven't really seen anything new done with Warp-In in a long time -- because these mechanics are far more straight forward, and, frankly, there just aren't enough of them.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
I'll just point out that I think the Overlord's Generate Creep ability is still sorely underused in general. I'm seeing so many Zerg players not tapping all of their Overlords to start generating Creep once they've reached Lair-tech, and there is simply no reason not to use the ability against any Protoss or Terran (Zerg opponents will be debatable, but that's not my point here). A few Overlords, even without speed upgrades, greatly speed up Creep Tumor spreading, and the faster you Creep up the map, the sooner you can reap the benefits.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
I'm very interested in the development of this discussion and as it evolves, I wonder if it will make a good article. Nice work man!
~LoA
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rainynightz
I'll just point out that I think the Overlord's Generate Creep ability is still sorely underused in general.
I agree. :) I think this is one area that might still hold some surprises for us. Although, there's still a limit to what this can possibly achieve -- the benefits of HAVING creep are a little too obvious for my liking. It's not like you're going to use an Overlord to drop creep in some weird location and suddenly that's going to allow you to do something no one's ever done before... which is sort of what I'm missing from the P and Z presently.
Your guys' positive feedback inspired me to write up a longer analysis of the same topic, which I posted on TL, and will quote here in its entirety for your perusal. :)
TERRANS HAVE HIGHEST SKILL CEILING
And, even speaking as a Terran, this isn’t a good thing. The reasons are plenty, but two that I won’t be getting into deliberately are micro and macro. Common sense usually holds that Terrans are the most micro-intensive race and that Zerg is the most macro-intensive, but you try telling Foxer that he doesn’t need to worry about macro in his TvZ, or white-Ra that he doesn’t need excellent micro in his Phoenix/Void-Ray play in PvZ, or any lategame Zerg that he doesn’t need good micro to flank and engage the Terran bioball. It just doesn’t work that way, the game is too flexible and these factors are too debateable, so I’m going to leave units, their production, and their control completely out of this equation. I’m only going to talk about factors that are objective, set-in-stone and, in my opinion, not open to debate. I’m going to talk about racial design (intentional and not) and synergy (intentional and not), and how these create a disparity in the skill-caps between the races.
First, what does that even mean? I’m not saying that Terran players are better, or that the Terran race takes more skill to play. I’m saying that over the course of SC2’s meta-game, if nothing at all is patched from this point onward, Terran gameplay is going to change the most radically, especially in subtle ways, and that comparing Terran play now to the Beta, it already has.
DESIGN
Remember how Supply Depots in SC2 were designed from the ground-up to allow Terrans to wall-in easier (a convenience that wasn’t paralleled for either Zerg or Protoss)? And for a long time, that’s exactly what Terran players did. But watch any recent TvZ or TvP, and a good half of the time that Depot won’t be anywhere near the wall. What changed? Well, for one thing, Terrans realized that a Depot was too weak to repel a Baneling Bust and created an opening for the enemy to exploit. But that doesn’t tell you where to place the Depot, only where not to place it. So why is it that almost every Terran will place his first Depots around – or under – his mineral line, especially in TvT? The short answer is: because he can.
The long answer is that the Depot has the uncanny ability to submerge under the ground, where it takes up no space, and can therefore be hidden next to very well protected areas so that it doesn’t get destroyed by Banelings, Mutalisks, Void Rays, or Banshees. As soon as Terrans realized that their Depots were a liability, they wondered, “How do we remedy that?” And the tools to do this were already built into the game, perfectly at their disposal. This doesn’t mean that sniping Depots is now impossible and that Terrans are imbalanced. All it means is that they had an unorthodox tool at their disposal, and when the time came, they found a way to take advantage of it. The moral of the story is: having unorthodox, arbitrary tools at a race’s disposal is a very, very good thing for fostering fresh and creative play. I genuinely wonder how the submerge functionality will be taken advantage of one year from now… two years, three years.
The problem is Terrans have a disproportionate amount of unorthodox features at their disposal. Some are subtle. Take the Command Center, which could, as early as SC1, lift off. But apparently that wasn’t enough. Now it can also load and unload workers to protect and/or transport them. Now it can upgrade into a spellcaster with a number of versatile abilities, or a powerful stationary defense. The tactics opened up by the CC’s weirdness and the weirdness of its progeny alone is staggering. Not only are early expansions to islands possible in SC1, with the 5 workers maynard they are in many cases even a good idea (Kulas Ravine). You can use your expanding CC as an emergency wall and simply relocate it at your convenience. And of course you can keep your CC alive against many, many units just by lifting it into the air. (Never mind all the sacrificial Engineering Bays and Barrackses over the years, a role the CC would naturally fulfill if other structures could not.) And we haven’t even gotten to the OC or the PF: who’d have imagined on Day 1 of Beta that MULEs would be dropped on Lost Temple ledges to keep Thors alive, or that Planetary Fortresses would be commonly built for late-game area denial when supplies are capped but resources are plenty? A Planetary Fortress is a powerful defensive tool… only thing is, combined with the Command Center’s ability to fly and its ability to carry SCVs, it can even be used offensively in the early game.
These last few are obviously unintentional, but they’re there just the same. Contrast and compare with Creep Tumors, the use of which hasn’t changed in any way since Day 1. Sure, people use them more, but they don’t use them differently, because there’s no way to use these things differently. Their function is clear-cut. So why is it that a MULE, also with a seemingly clear-cut function, can be used differently? Synergy, and all I’ll get to that in a minute.
Back to design: Command Centers, Orbital Commands, and Planetary Fortresses are still not all the Terrans have. Bunkers now have the arbitrary Salvage ability, which, combined with Reapers, made them for a time an incredibly powerful offensive tool, and gives them added functionality all over the place. Just cuz. Sensor Towers are entirely superfluous structures – Zerg might have easy map vision through Creep Tumors, but Protoss still have nothing. Why is that? Did Blizzard decide that Stalkers are just too friggin’ good at fighting back Mutalisk harass compared to Thors? Sensor Towers may not add so much to the skill cap, but they do add arbitrarily to the number of options available to a Terran player in-game, and each of those options has its own skill ceiling.
It’s not that Protoss and Zerg have no options outside of regular unit selection (which Terran shares); Pylon placement for Warp-in is an interesting addition. Creep Tumor placement is an interesting addition. So are Nydus Worms. The problems are that 1) there aren’t enough parallel mechanics for the other races, and 2) those mechanics simply aren’t deep enough; they don’t reward creative use. And that brings us to the next point.
SYNERGY
Whether it’s by accident or deliberately, the Terran race has by far the most synergy. The synergy exists between units, it exists between buildings, and in many cases even between units and buildings. Marines and Medivacs aren’t simply good together in the sense that Sentries and Colossi are good together. They’re designed from the ground-up to complement one another, like Fungal Growth and Banelings. The divide between ‘infantry’ and ‘mechanical’ units is not merely there (so is the divide between Psionic and non-Psionic units for the Protoss), it is absolutely pervasive, and Terran mechanics are built completely around it. Only infantry units can enter Bunkers; only infantry units are healed by Medivacs. Only structures burn down; only mechanical units (and structures) cannot replenish life without cost. And that last is key, because it brings us to Repair.
The 8-minute Thor rush (or its faster variants) wouldn’t be possible without repair. Planetary Fortresses would be nearly useless without repair. Wall-Ins would be too dangerous without repair. Getting Battlecruisers would be even riskier if you weren’t able to keep the first one or two alive with mass SCVs before you reached critical mass. This might not have been what Blizzard had in mind when they came up with Repair back in 1998, but now it is a central part of the race, and the beauty of it is how naturally it flows from instance to instance. When you bring SCVs to repair a Thor on LT ledge overlooking Zerg natural, that same SCV can be used to build a forward Bunker, that same SCV can be used to build a Missile Turret to keep the Thor safe from unclumped, microed Mutas, that same SCV can repair the Medivac that’s getting hit by Queens while it gives your Siege Tank (if you went Tank instead of Thor) vision. When a Terran leapfrogs across the map with sieged tanks, the same SCVs that are keeping his mech army alive are constructing Missile Turrets and Sensor Towers to contain his opponent.
Why does this matter? Because a Queen managed to take out the Medivac, the Thor is in danger, and suddenly you drop down two MULEs on the ledge to keep the Thor alive. Because MULEs can repair, too. They’re SCVs that can be where you need them, when you need them. Sure, there’s a price tag attached, but whether or not it’s worth it is your call to make. At least you have that option. Even if the design behind MULEs wasn’t deliberately in support of this tactic, the fact that it has more abilities than it “needed” (it didn’t need Repair to do what it was made for, which is mining) allowed players to get creative.
That’s what this is all about. Options. A year from now, you won’t see Chrono Boost being used in new and inventive ways, because there simply are no other ways than “speeding up production” to use it. Choosing what to speed up, when to conserve and when to spend, may be good tactical choices… but the ability is shallow, because it creates no synergy between other abilities. You’re not going to see Nexuses placed in strange positions six months from now, because there’s no benefit to be gleaned from it, there never could be. You’re not going to see Drones suddenly sent out with mid-game armies, because there is no potential use for them. They have no ability to interact with other units and structures of their race, nothing new to be discovered and perfected. Unlike the Command Center/SCV/Planetary Fortress relationship, which is entirely symbiotic and dynamic, the Nexus has absolutely no relation to anything else. Warp-In and Creep Tumors were undeniably good moves by Blizzard and both add depth to their respective races – but for every step taken by Protoss and Zerg in the development of this game, the Terrans were taking five.
CONCLUSIONS
The question remains “why?” Why do Terrans get a building that can fly, take in SCVs, and cast 3 different versatile spells, all at the same time? And why does that come as an alternative to a different, equally versatile upgrade? Where are the parallels for the other races? Sure, they have unit micro and timings to discover and perfect, but so do Terrans. All of the things I mentioned here are on top of the timings and knowledge the other races have to pick up. “Terrans are defensive” isn’t enough, because the abilities and upgrades they get have, as it turns out, far more than merely defensive applications, because of the synergies already in place.
Blizzard needs to change their approach to designing the races come Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. Adding two units may be perfectly enough for Terrans, but if they want Protoss and Zerg gameplay to keep from getting stale – not just unit tactics, but racial tactics – they’re going to have to go back all the way to the fundamentals. Give players reasons to get creative with their building placement. Give them access to versatile spells for the sake of giving them access to versatile spells that will be used in unpredictable new ways. Create new relationships between units. The Overlord spreading creep may have been an attempt to do just that, but it isn’t enough. It isn't enough because using Overlords to spread Creep is inefficient, and it isn't enough because Creep itself is entirely predictable. Its uses don't change based on whether you cast it on a mineral patch or on a Siege Tank or on a lonely structure whose HP is in the red. It always, always makes your units faster. It isn't bad -- but it is shallow. The potential to take advantage of the races' differences is obviously there. But the depth isn't. Not yet.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
It takes to much time to micro overlords into creating creep and then individually move them to the correct place. Hate it.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
@Pure.wasted: I do not understand how Terran can have a high skill ceiling with such an easy to traverse learning curve. The two elements exist typically in direct contrast to each other, however in the case of the Terran dynamic, the easy learning curve seems to feed the diversity of strategies being employed, at least so far as unit/counter unit selection. But I don't see much diversity in actual strategy because all terran units and buildings foster simple brute force strategies, which while we can all agree are perhaps a little too effective, are not all that impressive to the truly strategic mind. To me, terran simply embodies the swarm mentality better than the Swarm does.
The ghost's abilities foster brute force, but in an indirect, mass destruction sense (nukes, emp). Snipe is the exception. This plus cloak essentially gives Terran its own dark templar with range, albeit in a temporary form, giving the ghost a versatility simply beyond all compare, in stark contrast to its sc1 form.
Terrans ability have an answer for everything. The actual strategy involved is minimal. You simply need to know what your opponent intends to bring. And scan grants you this. This is what truly lacks in Zerg and Protoss. Each have minor counters, but are required in such numbers as to be untenable in many situations, when scouted. I for one do not have a problem with scouting as any race.
Successful Protoss strategies are predicated on strong macro because of the unit cost. Even then, Terran wields the protoss sterilizer: EMP. Mass anything? A couple good emps makes them as impotent as an (mental image warning) old timer who's pill ran out at exactly the wrong time. I only mention EMP because a lot of good bronze terrans are incorporating ghosts vs toss now. No ghosts but a lot of bcs? Yamato time.
My only answer has been to build an equally split army of voids and stalkers, with occasional carriers and a few hts and/or dts mixed in, depending on the situation. Dts can be very useful against a terran ground force when mixed in with a stalker/void ray mass because the terran will not at first notice them. Protoss must be able to micro their units to win.
Zerg can produce these numbers very easily with a good economy and enough hatches and queens (hatches in a 1.5 to 1 ratio to bases). Yet the high end units are so expensive that you might as well play protoss (broodlord, ultra, corruptor, infestor, I'm looking at YOU). The easily affordable zerg units are too weak mid and late game to be effective unless your opponent allows himself to be out macro'd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eligor
Though the really interesting question is, how do you make Protoss and Zerg as tactically diverse without compromizing their racial identities?
Indeed it is. I like the energy sharing idea and have a suggestion: require both the sending and receiving units to be within pylon power radius and limit the giving units to no more than 50% of their power. As for shield regen enhancement: the same mechanic would apply, except with shields. Also, the number of givers would be limited to, say, 4 active at any given time. Another suggestion would be to simply grant the MS the speed it needs to be useful, at a mild 200 hp and 200 shield point reduction.
Protoss are also the most lacking in defensive capability. A suggestion would be to double the rate of cannon fire (as an upgrade at the forge). They die too quickly and fire at just about 3/4 of the turret's rate of fire. Also, add a cannon range upgrade, and require a robo support bay to unlock it (at forge; applies to the r.o.f. upgrade also), thus leaving early game strats unchanged.
For Zerg, the problem is less the number of strategies per se, but more the effectiveness of each strategy. Fungal growth should be an aid to fighting the bio ball, but not the crutch it is. Banelings? Not with the prevalence of tanks. You shouldn't need 20-30 banes to score 3-5 hits.
I have two Zerg ideas. The first is to allow another zergling upgrade at the hive level: Piercing damage: allows zerglings and mutas larger, stronger claws/glaives that ignore an opponents armor. Also bestows a +1 armor to zerglings. Would take effect in a fashion similar to the Zealot's charge.
The second is something I call Deep Burrow. Researched at the Hive, it allows creep tumors to burrow down and prevents ground units from targetting them. Also adds 50% to the creep radius of each tumor. Would also grant a plus 5% additional speed bonus.
Some suggestions to change Terran that will alleviate some of the countering issues.
1. Reduce emp energy/shield reduction by 1/3.
2. Base stim damage on a percentage of hp instead of flat hp amount.
3. Make Yamato hit ground/buildings only
4. Nerf banshee damage by 2.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flak4321
Some suggestions to change Terran that will alleviate some of the countering issues.
1. Reduce emp energy/shield reduction by 1/3.
2. Base stim damage on a percentage of hp instead of flat hp amount.
3. Make Yamato hit ground/buildings only
4. Nerf banshee damage by 2.
I hope you don't want all of these changes to be implemented. Protoss is hard enough to play against as it is. I can agree with the Stim part but the Yamato change is unnecessary.
OT: I think I agree with the OP. Although I do think the other races, especially Zerg, will evolve a lot in the coming months as well.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Castozor
I hope you don't want all of these changes to be implemented. Protoss is hard enough to play against as it is. I can agree with the Stim part but the Yamato change is unnecessary.
OT: I think I agree with th=e OP. Although I do think the other races, especially Zerg, will evolve a lot in the coming months as well.
I would like to see 3 of them, actually. Modification to the 4th: yamato can hit air, just reduce the range to 3 or 4. None of these are major and all answer the major complaints about Terran, save only the flying buildings issue. I will admit when combined with the Toss cannon buff I proposed, this would compound the win% shown recently, while balancing the TvZ matchup. Wew would then need to nerf Toss elsewhere. The same win% article shows a need to buff Toss for the PvZ MU. How do we satisfy both needs? Do we have to?
We can't really. Nor do we have to. In any PvZ, a Protoss has a guaranteed win if he can do 5 things: a) prevent infestors from spawning, (b) mass void rays, (c) successfully defend the first few attacks while massing void rays, (d) get at least 3 mining bases, (e) slow zerg expansion. I do note this is easier said than done. I've only lost to zergs when i've been out macro'd. Furthermore, a zerg with an opponent contrived macro problem cannot answer an immortal/colossi/void ray combo. I personally do not trust the PvZ win% in the article.
That said, void rays could stand another nerf. Not much of one though. I reiterate that the charge on a void ray should fade after 10-15 seconds regardless of whether the void ray is engaged. That would save a lot of the headache there. And add a +1 to psi requirement. Make them require the fleet beacon also.
The only nerf to Zerg I could see is reducing the roach off creep speed to that of the queen, pre-upgrade. The upgrade will also have its time increased by 33%. And no, I don't just spit these things out. They are based on my own experiences and my youtube viewing of Husky's, HD's, and SC:L's channels, off of which my playstyle is based.
Note: win% article here.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flak4321
That said, void rays could stand another nerf. Not much of one though. I reiterate that the charge on a void ray should fade after 10-15 seconds regardless of whether the void ray is engaged. That would save a lot of the headache there. And add a +1 to psi requirement. Make them require the fleet beacon also.
If you're gonna make void rays cost more psi and require fleet beacon...why nerf the charge. And you call that a little nerf. Just require more investment in it up to carrier/mothership tech. You're putting void rays on the same level as carriers, battlecruisers, ultralisks and broodlords. And considering void rays on Blizzard's unit counter list is supposed to counter all those units by being easier to make and having armored bonus....THE NEW VOID RAY. LATE GAME UNIT TO COUNTER OTHER LATE GAME UNITS. SEE CARRIERS COMING THROW DOWN THAT FLEET BEACON BEFORE THEY ARRIVE. I would say leave void rays where they are. Void ray rushes just don't work as well anymore.
And there is one complaint about terran which is not solved by your suggestions. The one this thread is about. Versatility. "Ok i see only marines and a bunker in the front. Could be banshees. Could be siege tank drop. Could be blue flame hellion drop. Could be Thors. Could be expo. Could be mass rax but he's faking me out."
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flak4321
Protoss are also the most lacking in defensive capability.
The second is something I call Deep Burrow. Researched at the Hive, it allows creep tumors to burrow down and prevents ground units from targetting them. Also adds 50% to the creep radius of each tumor. Would also grant a plus 5% additional speed bonus.
Protoss have the strongest anti-ground defence unless opponent has massive ground units. Forcefield. Any early rushes happen just forcefield get second sentry out forcefield again. Third one forcefield. Fourth one then you're at the magical number for constantly forcefielding. This has saved me lots of times. Forcefield 2-3 times then i just move down and kill what he has at the ramp. Most opponents back off once they see a second forcefield placed down before first finishes.
Deep burrow is a crazy idea. Would never be able to remove creep tumours. Good for zerg cos it means just 1 deep burrow creep tumour at opponent's natural shuts it down for the entire game. Late game zerg just have ovie drop queens, generate creep plop down deep burrow tumour and shut down every expansion opponent could possibly want.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JackhammerIV
Deep burrow is a crazy idea. Would never be able to remove creep tumours. Good for zerg cos it means just 1 deep burrow creep tumour at opponent's natural shuts it down for the entire game. Late game zerg just have ovie drop queens, generate creep plop down deep burrow tumour and shut down every expansion opponent could possibly want.
Yeah, totally OP idea.
Now, the ability to upgrade Creep Tumors so serve other purposes or give other bonuses... that could be useful.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
What about giving the other races some interesting versatility with their unique mechanics once HotS and LotV come out? Whats the most interesting race mechanics for Toss and Zerg? Pylon Power and Creep of course.
Give Toss two separate upgrades and Zerg one upgrade that would help change how these two race features would play out.
Protoss:
Energy Matrix: Researched from the Forge. Requires Cybernetics Core. Costs 150/150, 100 research time. All units within Pylon Power gain +1 or +2 Shield Armor.
Twilight Obelisk: Researched from the Forge. Requires Twilight Council. Costs, 150/150, 120 research time. Use 50/50 to transform a Pylon into a Twilight Obelisk. Obelisk have the same health and shields as Pylons, take 25 seconds to warp in, still give the same supply and pylon power, but have 200 energy and start with 50 upon warp in. Obelisk have 2 abilities, Shield Link and Energy Link. Using these abilities the Obelisk can transfer its energy into either Shields OR Energy to units within Pylon Power for a 1/1 ratio.
Zerg:
Advanced Tumors: Ressearched from the Evolution Chamber. Requires Lair. Costs, 100/100, 100 research time. Gives Creep Tumors 2 additional abilities, Swarm Tumor and Corrosion Tumor. Swarm Tumors deal 1 damage every second to all non allied units standing within a 10 radius of a Swarm Tumor, buildings are un-affected. Corrosion Tumors slow the attack and movement speed of all non allied units standing within a 10 radius of a Corrosion Tumor by 15%. All similar effects are non-stacking. Transform Swarm and Corrosion Tumors become un-usable if a creep tumor spawns an additional creep tumor.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
I like those ideas except the energy matrix. It sounds similar to guardian shield which basically does improve armor but only for ranged attacks. Twilight obelisk sounds great though. But it might unnecessarily boost templars. Might become a case of not needing the research for more initial energy. Don't really need shields to regen though. It regens quite fast out of battle.
And tumors that just slow down movement speed would be good. No attack speed reduction or do damage to units. That would be a bit too much buffing to zerg. Maybe like an expensive hive tech research that takes a long time but makes all enemy units slower on creep.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
I think that if increasing versatility is the goal, additions would need to be abilities rather than attribute modifiers (e.g. +armour, etc) and active (i.e. player-controlled) rather than passive. The reason for the former is that abilities introduce new functions (which can be combined with other functions to create a different result) where as modifiers primarily allow a unit to do better what it previously already could.
As for active vs passive, direct control allows an ability's use to be limited only by a player's creativity where as passive abilities are limited by what its programming directs it to do. For instance, if the Zealot's Charge was player-controlled, it could be used to retreat, reduce travelling time and dodge AoE attacks (e.g. EMP) on top of its standard 'quickly close-in on enemy target' function.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
I agree with mr peasant on this.
.. to go with that thought, and the case of diversifying zerg tumors, what about giving the tumors active one-shot abilities as alternative to spreading forth?
now, creeptumors are easily massed, so this would have to be controlled somehow, even if its one-shot abilities.
we probably wouldnt want to have it cost resources or anything funky like that, so either make the active ability subtle enough that massing is a non issue, or give it a global cooldown; if one tumor uses an ability, no other tumor can do that for x seconds.
tumor abilities brainstorm:
"silence" (lacking a better name) prevent ability use within target area or on target units for some 5-15 seconds. subtle enough, but can be crucial in preventing FF, psi storm, fungal, siege and stim at critical timings. (even if radius & global cooldown prevents it from dominating large armies, it can still make a significant differance!) .... maybe detection could be denied by this as well?
"regeneration" boosting HP regeneration for nearby zerg units for a short duration, (doesnt stack) .. can help get units back towards full health in between skrimishes in tight situations; better use of energy than transfuse when you have slightly more time and more units to heal but less damage on each. (but barely worth the effort mid-battle - it might even regenerate ANY nearby units, inclduing enemies, but only biological?)
"de-energize" (LOL im bad at names!) stop energy regeneration of enemy units that are targeted for 15-35 seconds (depending on how big radisu & range was deemed appropriate) ... zerg are currently the only race without any ability to interact with enemy energy reserves., this would at least give the option of keeping reserves from growing, witch might tie well into a planned counteroffensive or buy valuable time to prepare a defence.
im ratehr happy with these what do you think??
.........For protoss i dont know. im still liking the general idea of energy-sharing. but such af eature would need some serious boundaries.. and shield sharing? you wish. rightnow, to me, that seems like it'd be totally broken, in any conceivable form: protoss units are hard enough to kill as it is.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
@Jackhammer:
Ok. My ideas aren't perfect. The creep tumor one has been debunked. I need to rethink the zerg approach. I just feel giving them a passive assist ability would be OP to an extent because of how numerous they can get and the possible issue of ability stacking with several tumors in close proximity. I attempted to fathom an ability that would naturally avoid this, and failed.
As for the Void ray discussion, a correction: an upgrade for charge only. My attempt with the fleet beacon was overkill, but i would like to note that I would've suggested fleet beacon before stargate, simply because the names feel more in logical sequence, yet their functions would make this no better than my previous. Just sharing my thoughts on why that particular nerf was suggested. :)
The Terran versatility problem is answerable by making the other races more versatile in the face of the terran's strongest arsenal components, so long as balance in PvZ remains. But is this necessary? Not really. Another thought example: I have no problem with orbital command as is, to bring in PW's chief complaint, as it is well balanced. Spawn Larvae and Chrono both counter mules and supply drop (spawn more overlords sooner, chrono probes yields resources faster, yielding pylons faster). In fact, Mules and supply drop may have the most overlap of any 2 abilities in the game, if you think about it this way. My Counter question is therefore: We can't snipe chrono boost without attacking a nexus. we can snipe queens, but larvae are only truly stopped by getting the hatch too. It is therefore balanced to make us have to snipe an OC by this logic, to stop Mules, scan and supply drop, is it not? Because this is balanced, this means there is no versatility issue between these abilities. While this simplistic approach is not universally applicable, it does give us a basis from which to compare other abilities.
I look at the abilities on the Ghost, BC and Raven also and see little that is comparable. At first. Feedback can limit emp and snipe while psi storm does area damage, but the extent and effectiveness differs. Hallucinate is a good way to, for example, limit PDD and Autoturret effectiveness. Force field's abilities are well known.
I see and understand the same shortcoming for Zerg. At least at first. Fungal growth does what psi storm does. Neural parasite is one heck of an ability in a tight spot. Spawn creep tumor extends sight and creep for a very small cost, giving zerg by far the least expensive scouting tool, with limitations. They can't move and getting one or two in a base is tough and short-lived. Changelings are also effective in this role. Infested Terrans provide psi-storm/snipe like damage and a grander scale, but still falls short of the nuke, and in many cases, yamato. But those 2 take a large investment to get to, which doesn't always pay off in full or at all. And don't get me started on how weak nukes are compared to SC1. Transfusion matches medivacs, if you want 6 or so queens roaming around.
What I truly see is Terran versatility compounded by an utter lack of experience with the other 2 races. We all played the campaign. Most of us have done the challenge missions on bnet. Terran dominated tutorials produce Terran dominated gameplay. We all understand Terran gameplay so well bewcause of this, we can see their strategies much more easily. We had too little for the other 2 races. 4 Toss levels crammed everything together. 1 at least of those levels (the last) had to be played at such a frenetic pace that you could learn nothing but macro, and another was installation style, teaching only blink and Zeratul abilities MP won't see.
Of all the abilities and units we have, Terran has the most direct carry-overs from sc1, adding to the familiarity. Buildings are ignored on purpose as they add a bias. The count:
T: nuke, yamato, heal, scan, marine, siege tank, bc, ghost (8; 4 abil, 4 units)
P: Psi storm, hallucinate, ht, zealot, carrier, observer (2 abil, 4 units)
Z: fungal growth (essentially = plague), burrow, zling, hydra, muta, overlord (2 abil, 4 units)
Cases can be made for feedback (works similar to, but not exactly as maelstrom, but more like defiler's consume) and neural parasite (works like mind control, with tentacle), but they switched races, so a counter-argument of that kind would have merit. Note: Infested Terran is a carry-over in name only. The usage is vastly different.
Edit: MS's recall is exactly as the Arbiter's, and Vortex can be equated to stasis field with a different animation, but the unit is such crap, I do not wish to include these, because their effectiveness is as limited as the unit that now houses them.
This illustratably greater familiarity with Terran from sc1 to sc2 exacerbates the experience problem, and begs the question "Are Zerg and Toss too different from sc1, or has Terran been made too similar?" This is a debate for another thread.
In all, I say we stay quiet on these issues and speak only of the true imbalance issues, when and only when all three episodes of this trilogy are out. If the schedule release is a reasonable layout of Blizz's SC expectations only, this is about 4 years all told. No, this is not SC1, but we should give this the same time period/effort for fleshing out before we lodge such complaints and theories. We just don't have enough data on Toss and Zerg to declare Terran overly versatile.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mr. peasant
For instance, if the Zealot's Charge was player-controlled, it could be used to retreat, reduce travelling time and dodge AoE attacks (e.g. EMP) on top of its standard 'quickly close-in on enemy target' function.
This one I would like. :)
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
I agree, Zealot charge should be played controlled *only* with a much longer cool down.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wankey
I agree, Zealot charge should be played controlled *only* with a much longer cool down.
Since they're at that, they could do the same with Concussive Shells, Heal, and Repair :rolleyes:
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flak4321
In all, I say we stay quiet on these issues and speak only of the true imbalance issues, when and only when all three episodes of this trilogy are out. If the schedule release is a reasonable layout of Blizz's SC expectations only, this is about 4 years all told. No, this is not SC1, but we should give this the same time period/effort for fleshing out before we lodge such complaints and theories. We just don't have enough data on Toss and Zerg to declare Terran overly versatile.
This is your opinion, period.
to me, your arbitrary comparissons between racial features and sc1/sc2 abilities does little if anything to support your point.
im not trying to ignore the fact that we've all played the campaign but by now, thats a very small portion of the time spent playing this game. also, the campaign plays drastically different than the MP does.
... the notion of adding versatility of playstyles in general and to Z & P especially, is however a very hypothetical discussion; IMO you should be able to take part in it without actually being convinced to what extent it is or will be called for.. there's no harm in trying.
that being said, its quite unreasonable to assume or expect any structural changes before the first ex-pack HotS. its just interesting to discuss what kind of changes / additions would be most interesting / worthwhile for the MP, longrun.
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Todie
This is your opinion, period.
to me, your arbitrary comparissons between racial features and sc1/sc2 abilities does little if anything to support your point.
im not trying to ignore the fact that we've all played the campaign but by now, thats a very small portion of the time spent playing this game. also, the campaign plays drastically different than the MP does.
... the notion of adding versatility of playstyles in general and to Z & P especially, is however a very hypothetical discussion; IMO you should be able to take part in it without actually being convinced to what extent it is or will be called for.. there's no harm in trying.
that being said, its quite unreasonable to assume or expect any structural changes before the first ex-pack HotS. its just interesting to discuss what kind of changes / additions would be most interesting / worthwhile for the MP, longrun.
Of course this is largely my opinion. As Jackhammer more or less disproved the viablility of my original suggestions, and challenged me to consider the OP's original thread discussion, I took the proverbilal "whack at it." I understand my tone can become "gospelish," like I feel like I'm the end all argument, but I don't believe that for a minute. I'm actually having a lot of fun with this discussion. :) My apologies to the veteran players who have much longer MP hours than I, who can easily speak counter to me, and also for my sometimes too rigid choice of words. Such rigidity was not my intent.
As for my argument itself, my comparison to sc1 was to illustrate where one could draw familiarity for a basis of learning each race, which is a valid learning technique. It was not wholly intended to prove why Terran is so versatile, merely to introduce a theory. Terran is more familiar to us, especially as noobs.
Yes, the campaign and challenges are indeed a small part of many of our SC2 experiences. I've logged easily 40-50 times the time I have spent on these in multiplayer, maybe more, as that's just a guess. That said, I ask you, how many players have we seen publicized as having switched to or back to Terran, just so they can win more often? Does this prove the versatility theory or the familiarity theory, or both? Can we say the same about players switching to Zerg or Protoss? I personally play random in 1v1s because I love and understand all three races too much to simply choose one.
Despite my career aspirations as an accountant, I am first and foremost in heart a scientist. I revel in exploring theories and fleshing out angles that seem little used, experimenting until the theory has merits enough to stand on its own or loses them sufficiently to fall, whatever the case may be, and I felt this "Familiarity" angle needed my touch. If I am wrong in this case, "Familiarity" is then a theory that can describe only noobs and noob playstyles. As you say, there's no harm in trying. If anything, it gives us a different light under which we can consider our beloved game. :)
-
Re: Terran Versatility -- Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Todie
This is your opinion, period.
to me, your arbitrary comparissons between racial features and sc1/sc2 abilities does little if anything to support your point.
im not trying to ignore the fact that we've all played the campaign but by now, thats a very small portion of the time spent playing this game. also, the campaign plays drastically different than the MP does.
... the notion of adding versatility of playstyles in general and to Z & P especially, is however a very hypothetical discussion; IMO you should be able to take part in it without actually being convinced to what extent it is or will be called for.. there's no harm in trying.
that being said, its quite unreasonable to assume or expect any structural changes before the first ex-pack HotS. its just interesting to discuss what kind of changes / additions would be most interesting / worthwhile for the MP, longrun.
Of course this is largely my opinion. As Jackhammer more or less disproved the viablility of my original suggestions, and challenged me to consider the OP's original thread discussion, I took the proverbial "whack at it." I understand my tone can become "gospelish," like I feel like I'm the end all argument, but I don't believe that for a minute. I'm actually having a lot of fun with this discussion. :) My apologies to the veteran players who have much longer MP hours than I, who can easily speak counter to me, and also for my sometimes too rigid choice of words. Such rigidity was not my intent.
As for my argument itself, my comparison to sc1 was to illustrate where one could draw familiarity for a basis of learning each race, which is a valid learning technique. It was not wholly intended to prove why Terran is so versatile, merely to introduce a theory. Terran is more familiar to us, especially as noobs.
Despite my career aspirations as an accountant, I am first and foremost in heart a scientist. I revel in exploring theories and fleshing out angles that seem little used, experimenting until the theory has merits enough to stand on its own or loses them sufficiently to fall, whatever the case may be, and I felt this "Familiarity" angle needed my touch. If I am wrong in this case, "Familiarity" is then a theory that can describe only noobs and noob playstyles. As you say, there's no harm in trying. If anything, it gives us a different light under which we can consider our beloved game. :)
Let’s have another look at those sc1 to sc2 comparisons. What do you notice about the Terran carry-over abilities? Ease of use is better with the Terran selection. A ghost can cloak and generally moves faster than a defiler in sc1, and out-speeds an HT in both games. It merely matches speed with the Infestor. Versatility and ease of use contradict each other. Ease of use breeds familiarity, further supporting my theory.
What really gets me about this versatility discussion is how any one person can claim races a and b are less versatile than race c without discussing counter abilities or units that races a and b can bring. I did that with the OC/Nexus/Hatch & Queen illustration, and more or less weakened the versatility theory. Did I disprove it? Hardly.
Another non-arbitrary example for you: In sc1, we know balance was done minus the influence of competitive gaming. Each race could not claim definitive counters for any one unit. Strategies evolved spontaneously. In SC2, the competitive influence exists, and so must be acknowledged. The result? We now have a game with predefined, recommended unit-to-unit counters, except where Terran is concerned. Terran can still counter any unit with just about any unit that can target the attacker in question, thus Terran is said to be very versatile compared to Toss and Zerg.
Let’s bring some actual units into play. Protoss attacks with void rays only. Timing dependent, I can counter with my marines, Vikings, bcs, ghost w/ emp, Thors, or any combo thereof. Let’s reverse the argument. Terran attacks with a bio ball supported by ghosts, bcs, medivacs and Vikings. I can counter with void rays, carriers, blink stalkers, sentries w/ or w/o hallucinate, hts w/ feedback and psi storm or any combo thereof. As long as I have a sufficient counter from this group to complement, I can throw in dts, colossi and zealots too! I just counter for tanks and marauders too! And here the argument was supposed to be Terran is more versatile than Toss and Zerg. Toss is certainly up to the challenge.
Zerg? The same thing applies. I could counter the same Terran attack with any reasonable mix of any of the Zerg units available, with applicable abilities. The only Zerg downside is the presence of only 1 and a half offensive spellcasters (half for the Queen). Otherwise, Zerg is also up to the challenge. The difference is Zerg needs numbers as part of any strategy. No Zerg unit will consistently stand up to its Terran counter 1 on 1, nor is this meant to be. Toss actually can in many cases. A void ray will own a Viking 1 on 1. At least three for a single BC though, so some counters still require numbers. This knowledge points to using the counter correctly as opposed to the counter being in sufficient.
To address some of your other points: Yes, the campaign and challenges are indeed a small part of many of our SC2 experiences. I've logged easily 40-50 times the time I have spent on these in multiplayer, maybe more, as that's just a guess. That said, I ask you, how many players have we seen publicized as having switched to or back to Terran, just so they can win more often? Does this prove the versatility theory or the familiarity theory, or both? Can we say the same about players switching to Zerg or Protoss? I personally play random in 1v1s because I love and understand all three races too much to simply choose one.
