Roaches are whats wrong with this game

[newcomplex]

How? AoE is the sole reason why bio was never viable in SC1 vs. Terran or Protoss. Psi Storm and Siege Tanks made bio worthless.

I wouldn't call making something viable as being "off kilter."

Right. And nerfing/reworking AoE to allow viable bio play is fine. What shouldn't be encouraged is making bio play viable exclusively through the use of massing marauders. 8rax techlab marauders with a couple medivacs isn't what anyone had in mind when they wanted bio to be viable in SC2.

The current disparity between marauder and marine health make balancing bio to use both impossible.

AoE is not something that micro can overcome. You can't just fight through it or out-smart it. If they have AoE, you lose. Period, end of story. Hard counters don't get harder than this.

Are you saying that microing my units out of psi-storms don't reduce the effectiveness of psistorms, or running away from HSMs don't reduce the effectiveness of HSM's...

My point is that if blizzard wants to allow bioplay to be viable, they need to rework AoE in a way to be more skill dependent, and less effective against low HP units such as marines, at the same time, still useful and not completely useless.

The current HT changes suggest they agree with me.

However, balanced bioplay (as opposed to mass marauders), the thing we want to encourage, marines supported by marauders, will never be viable unless we normalize the disparity health disparity between marauders and marines, or drastically change the range of marauders.

If by "decent micro", you mean "can constantly kite them", then yes. However, having to heavily micro and babysit a unit just to have it do its job is not a good unit.

Micro dependent units aren't good units? Are you kidding me? Vultures lost versus zealots if they didn't kite, dragoons lost versus everything without micro...their are tons of units in the game that require micro. Hellions, reapers, banelings...any caster....

Micro dependent is a good thing. Attack moving is the bad thing.

But you've failed. You based your arguments on things that aren't true, and your logic doesn't correspond to how units actually work in the game.

You haven't refuted any of my points in that regard. None of your points had anything to do with my actual analysis. You haven't proved how marauders, immortals dps are ok, you haven't refuted how overuse of marauders make the metagame stale, you haven't refuted and you even conceded that their power may be a result of the current state of roaches. You even concede that some changes need to be made....

You can freely nerf Marauders. You may need to weak[en] other units,

like the Roach? What else would you suggest we weaken? Ultralisks?

[Aldrius]

Does the Sentry increase the efficiency of Zealots? Yes. By putting up chokes to trap enemies, and decreasing the damage Zealots take from ranged attacks, and hallucinating other targets.

The sentry is a SPELLCASTER. By it's very nature it's a support unit.

How can you not see the pattern is broken?

In my opinion, in this case, the Marauder is our firebat, the stalker is our dragoon, and the Roach is our hydralisk. All three of these units are intended to be useful on their own. Except for the Marauder, which, like many Terran units, serves two purposes, and also fills a support role. A sort of substitute for the medic.

So really, the Marauder is a medic, but serves in the Firebat's 'spot' and the reaper is a variation on the vulture which happens to be tier 1.

There isn't 'main tier 1 unit, then support tier 1.5 unit'. There's 3 tier 1 units. One is your main tier 1, one is your main tier 1.5. Then one exists in a sort of pseudo-support role. Not intended as a main army unit, merely to accent what is already there.

To me that describes the baneling and the reaper very well. And partially the marauder. Which is both a main army unit (anti-armored) and a support unit (concussive missiles.)

I'm not saying the Roach doesn't need changes, I just don't think it's intended as a support unit.

[Nicol Bolas]

And nerfing/reworking AoE to allow viable bio play is fine.

So the only way to make Barracks units actually useful is to:

1: Remove Psi Storm.

2: Remove Banelings.

3: Remove the Siege Tank.

Or, you know, we could just make Barracks units not so susceptible to AoE. Like, by giving them a Barracks unit that is harder to kill.

Are you saying that microing my units out of psi-storms don't reduce the effectiveness of psistorms, or running away from HSMs don't reduce the effectiveness of HSM's...

No, they do not. Again, Marines were useless in SC1 TvP solely because of Psi Storm. Why? Because no matter how good your micro is, storm dodging simply doesn't work if the unit doesn't have a minimum quantity of HP. It's the same reason why Zerg players will storm dodge with Hydralisks, but generally not bother with Zerglings. They simply die too fast.

As for HSM "dodging", don't make me laugh. Ground units cannot effectively dodge HSM while an actual fight is going on.

Micro dependent units aren't good units? Are you kidding me? Vultures lost versus zealots if they didn't kite, dragoons lost versus everything without micro...

Yes, and what was the effect of that? Terrans had an entirely unintentional way of living without Marines. Marines were supposed to be dealing with Zealots. But Psi storm killed them. "Fortunately," Terran players found that if they spent their time with Vultures, they could do something unexpected.

If you get a Tier 2 unit to counter a Tier 1 unit, it had better counter it. It should not have to require micro just to do its job. It's fine for micro to make it better at a job. And it's fine for micro to allow one unit to take on some of the job of another. But if a unit is supposed to kill Zealots, it should not have to be microed to do that.

However, balanced bioplay (as opposed to mass marauders), the thing we want to encourage, marines supported by marauders, will never be viable unless we normalize the disparity health disparity between marauders and marines, or drastically change the range of marauders.

OK, let's pretend that you're right, and Marauders need to have 60 Hp or something. So that AoE can kill them right alongside Marines, thus making them incredibly bad tanking units. It's demonstrably stupid, but let's pretend that's the case.

Is that going to cause the Terrans to get overrun by Roaches? No! Again, it will cause them to get overrun by Banelings. This destroys your entire hypothesis. That even assuming that Marauders are way overpowered, nerfing them does not cause Zerg players to slaughter them with Roaches.

Why? Because Marauders even with only 60 Hp, still out-range them. They still slow them. They still have Stim. Which means that they can easily and endlessly kite them and annihilate them.

You haven't proved how marauders, immortals dps are ok

You haven't proved that they aren't. All you said was that the Immortal has the highest anti-armored DPS in the game. Well, someone has to have the highest anti-armored DPS in the game; why not Immortals?

Remember: you're the one trying to make the case that Roaches are somehow responsible for problems with other units. This requires establishing that:

1: There are problems to begin with. Simply noting that a particular unit has the highest anti-armored DPS isn't by itself a problem.

2: Establishing the causal relationship between Roaches and this particular problem. In the case of the Immortal, if the Immortal's DPS is an actual problem, you must show that it must retain this DPS in order to deal with Roaches as they currently are.

Thus far, neither of these has been demonstrated by you. You haven't shown that the Immortal's DPS is a problem, and you haven't shown that a 20+20 Immortal would be unacceptable at handling Roaches.

you haven't refuted and you even conceded that their power may be a result of the current state of roaches

I most certainly did not. I don't even particularly acknowledge the "power" that you are referring to.

like the Roach? What else would you suggest we weaken?

Um, no. Again, Roaches are locked because of their interplay with Protoss units (namely, Zealots). So changing Marauder stats cannot force a change to Roaches.

And note the conditional in what I said: "may need", not "will need." Maybe Marauders are overpowered as they currently are and need a strict nerf. Would it break the balance elsewhere to remove Marauder Stim? Try it and see. I doubt you'll see Zerg players running over Terrans with early Roaches if you do.

[rdragon87]

I do think there is something wrong with the current balance of things. I seem to rely on Marauders in nearly all of my fights and in many cases they replace Marines altogether.

Immortals make it so Terran have to go either Mass-Marauders, or Marines/Marauders, with Medivac/Ghost support. Technically, Terran can go Banshees/Vikings but that's risky. The Immortals almost completely negate anything that comes from the Factory. Honestly, if it weren't for the Marauders currently OP form I don't know how I would beat Protoss without just pushing for 3rd Tier. *Colossi cause a very similar effect.

As for Roaches, I feel that they make Zerg a little too secure against most rushes. They don't just beat Zealots, they beat just about every early game unit. Once I get established, I stop worrying about Roaches and start worrying about Hydralisks or Mutalisks. Basically, Roaches all but garauntee that Zerg makes it past early game. Worse yet, without Marauders it means I'm very unlikely to make it pass the early game.
(I'm still learning to deal with Baneling Bust).

Some say that Marauders soak up damage for the Marines, but this isn't the case. Marines die and only Marauders remain is what really happens, due to the fact that they have equal range (I think?). It feels more like Marines are really weak shields for the Marauders. It seems to me, that this is the reason people just skip out on the Marines and build strictly Marauders.

I think a decent fix for Marauders would be to lose a bit of range and a bit less damage against Armored, while giving Marines a bit more range and more damage (Remove Shields, give U-238 Rounds back but they buff damage and range). This way the Marauders would actually soak up damage for the Marines who would be more of a glass cannon. This would also differentiate the role between the two further, and grant Marines a bit more use.

[newcomplex]

So the only way to make Barracks units actually useful is to:

1: Remove Psi Storm.

2: Remove Banelings.

3: Remove the Siege Tank.

Or, you know, we could just make Barracks units not so susceptible to AoE. Like, by giving them a Barracks unit that is harder to kill.

Or, you know, we could just make a Barracks unit not so susceptible to AoE that is a siege tank.

You see what I did there?

Tell me, what is the core difference between what you described and what I facetiously described. What makes one ok, and the other not. Bioplay with marines (or low HP medium dps cheap ranged, the role the marine embodies) is no more bioplay then if the siege tank was biological and came out of barracks.

Moreso, the original goal OF allowing biological units to be used in TvP was to diversify the strategies used in that matchup (Almost exclusively Vultures and Siege tanks, maybe golaiths). The current solution has TvP result in the single least diverse matchup in the game (on T's side). Yes, even moreso then ZvZ.

Don't tell me you, Nicol Bolas, are attempting to claim the existence of AoE invalidates bioplay.

Bioplay is DEFINED by the use of highly mobile units that are extremely vulnerable to AoE. Bioplay was the playstyle of choice against the zerg, who possessed the Lurker, which in direct engagement, decimated marines medics.

No, they do not. Again, Marines were useless in SC1 TvP solely because of Psi Storm. Why? Because no matter how good your micro is, storm dodging simply doesn't work if the unit doesn't have a minimum quantity of HP. It's the same reason why Zerg players will storm dodge with Hydralisks, but generally not bother with Zerglings. They simply die too fast.

Yes, I understand this. This is my entire point. The logical solution is to rebalance storm so marines don't die in one second.

The existence of the 125 marauder prevents the balancing of storm around marines because their is a freaking 80/70 hp disparity between them. If marauders had say, 90 HP (and were balanced around the fact), you could in fact balance storm in a way as to not invalidate bioplay and still remain highly effective because now there is only a possible 35 HP differential.

As for HSM "dodging", don't make me laugh. Ground units cannot effectively dodge HSM while an actual fight is going on.

Maybe you can't, but are you honestly claiming that ground units cannot dodge HSM's? No sorry.

Yes, and what was the effect of that? Terrans had an entirely unintentional way of living without Marines. Marines were supposed to be dealing with Zealots. But Psi storm killed them. "Fortunately," Terran players found that if they spent their time with Vultures, they could do something unexpected.

What? Vultures were an intended counter against Zealots. lol. It even says so. Good against light melee units, and light in general. I don't think marines were intended to counter zealot. They flat out didn't until medics came around.

If you get a Tier 2 unit to counter a Tier 1 unit, it had better counter it. It should not have to require micro just to do its job. It's fine for micro to make it better at a job. And it's fine for micro to allow one unit to take on some of the job of another. But if a unit is supposed to kill Zealots, it should not have to be microed to do that.

Says who? Why? Explain this to me. You've made a statement, one that you've made it before. Tell me why its intrinsically bad to require micro in order for a unit to counter another unit.

And roaches aren't tier 2. They are t1.5.

OK, let's pretend that you're right, and Marauders need to have 60 Hp or something. So that AoE can kill them right alongside Marines, thus making them incredibly bad tanking units. It's demonstrably stupid, but let's pretend that's the case.

I don't think you understand what "tanking" means. Marauders do not TANK storms. Tanking is defined in video games as absorbing damage in place of. I'd be ok if they tanked storms for marine. That would be ok. They just live through them, and marines die. That isn't tanking.

Is that going to cause the Terrans to get overrun by Roaches? No! Again, it will cause them to get overrun by Banelings.

That's exactly the point!

Balance isn't a binary process, its far more complex then that. Banelings would become significantly more effective against terran SHOULD the marauder get nerfed. Specifically, your only counter against roaches is killed by banelings. Yet at the same time, I'm sure your well aware that the zerg would be at a severe disadvantage without banelings.

It isn't just about "As long as maraunders could physically kill roaches". Marauders with 11 hp could physically counter roaches with a medivac. It wouldn't be a practical counter in the grand scheme of the game.

If we make Marauders counterable to an extent by banelings, we need to make them less vital countering roaches. Hence, nerf roaches.

quote from the future:

Lets give siege tanks a bajillion damage versus roaches

But see, now your back to where we began. With a overpowered unit being made not overpowered through very powerful counters. The game now revolves around siege tanks not being able to be easily countered. Well, were back to where we started. The fundemental dynamic of the game is STILL BROKEN due to roaches.

1: There are problems to begin with. Simply noting that a particular unit has the highest anti-armored DPS isn't by itself a problem.

Establishing a unit has inordinate DPS in relations to their overall function is a problem. Immortals have too much utility due to the shield to be doing that kind of DPS. In terms of the damage/cost ratio, its among the highest outside of T1 units, which we've established is balanced through AoE damage.

Now that we have the fundamentals established, we can move onto the immortal. The immortal is objectively overpowered against armored units. They have among the highest damage per cost to armored units. The DPC to armored, highest in the game outside of marauders and t1 allows them kill buildings inordinately fast (part of the core reasons why people percieve buildings die to fast in SC2). They have no obvious counter within the framework OF terran mech play. Their only intrinsic counter is a ranged non-armored unit which does attacks very fast with damage close to ten.

The unit I've just described is a marine.

You haven't shown that a 20+20 Immortal would be unacceptable at handling Roaches.

A 20+20 immortal would mean that an immortal takes 4 shots to kill a roach as opposed to 3. This is a 33% nerf in effectiveness against roaches. Currently, immortals do not beat roaches cost for cost at a large enough margin that a 33% nerf would allow them to still be sufficiently effective versus roaches. Zerg will also be able to micro damaged roaches back, greatly gimping the effectiveness of immortals.

I most certainly did not. I don't even particularly acknowledge the "power" that you are referring to.

Now, all that being said, would the Immortal merit a lower damage bonus if Roaches didn't exist? Possibly. But they would still melt through Marauders. Would Marauders merit a lower damage output? No, because without that, the Terrans aren't able to deal with Stalkers effectively.

However, I submit that these changes would be relatively minor overall, and change little about the flavor and utility of the units in question

Your not conceding your entire point IE: A rework is too big a phrase, but you agree to the concept slight nerfs on all 3 of these units may be needed.

Um, no. Again, Roaches are locked because of their interplay with Protoss units (namely, Zealots). So changing Marauder stats cannot force a change to Roaches.

The health of roaches isn't even relevant to its combat with zealots. 105 hp roaches would be just as effective against zealots. They would be weaker against stalkers. Since the immortal is getting nerfed, they would be about the same. Possibly even stronger.

Also zealots already counter roaches cost for cost if roaches don't kite.

And note the conditional in what I said: "may need", not "will need." Maybe Marauders are overpowered as they currently are and need a strict nerf. Would it break the balance elsewhere to remove Marauder Stim? Try it and see. I doubt you'll see Zerg players running over Terrans with early Roaches if you do.

I know your not saying "must need". Then you'd be agreeing with me. Marauder without stim would once again break their fight with roaches because roaches scale well into lategame, but now marauder do not. Realize roaches do 8 dps and marauders 13 with stim. Roaches with speed would move faster then unstimmed marauders. Plus, the terran lack a mobile detector without teching to the expensive raven, or spending 275 minerals on a scan.

[Nicol Bolas]

Bioplay is DEFINED by the use of highly mobile units that are extremely vulnerable to AoE.

No it's not. It's defined by the use of units that primarily come from the Barracks. In SC1 that happened to be synonymous, but it is certainly not required.

The Barracks/Factory/StarPort trichotomy is an important part of the Terran identity. Every Barracks you make is money you aren't spending on a Factory or StarPort. Unit upgrades are similarly segregated.

This creates a degree of front-loading for the Terrans. They have to choose up front what kind of units they want. And generally, they work best by picking a specific building to focus on and then getting a few support units from the others. If you invest a lot of money in, for example, Barrackses and Infantry Upgrades, you need to be able to cash in on that investment. The preferred method for doing so is by being able to produce and have effective units.

If one unit on the enemy's side can make all of your Barracks units obsolete, what good is making them to begin with?

In SC1 this is the case, hence the lack of Barracks play in TvT and TvP. In SC2, it is not. Thanks to units like the Marauder: a Barracks unit that can withstand some AoE.

I don't think you understand what "tanking" means. Marauders do not TANK storms.

But they do tank Siege Tank fire. They do tank Colossus shots. They do tank Banelings.

Marauders aren't just there to be "the bio unit that survives Storms". There's more to them than that.

Balance isn't a binary process, its far more complex then that. Banelings would become significantly more effective against terran SHOULD the marauder get nerfed. Specifically, your only counter against roaches is killed by banelings. Yet at the same time, I'm sure your well aware that the zerg would be at a severe disadvantage without banelings.

The Terrans have quite a few units that can hand Roaches their ass. Siege Tanks in either form (as long as they have something in the way like-> ), Thors are great at killing them with their 90-point attacks, Banshees get free Roach kills to, etc.

The worst removing Marauders does is force Terrans to play TvZ initially like TvP: wall in and go for Siege Tanks or Banshees, then Siege-expand. And Baneling busts are a thing of the past; Terrans know how to stop them now, just by using different building configurations.

Establishing a unit has inordinate DPS in relations to their overall function is a problem. Immortals have too much utility due to the shield to be doing that kind of DPS. In terms of the damage/cost ratio, its among the highest outside of T1 units, which we've established is balanced through AoE damage.

No, it's not. This isn't theorycraft anymore; some of us have the actual game now. We don't have to think anything or measure damage/cost ratios or whatever. The game tells the truth.

And the truth is that Immortals aren't that good. They're strong against armored, but are elementally weak to unarmored. They may have strong numbers, but when it comes down to killing stuff, they have a specific job to do, and they do that job reasonably well.

This doesn't make them imbalanced. It doesn't make them too powerful. If you want to show that they need a nerf, you have to do more than show numbers. We're in beta now: if you can't show it in the game, then it doesn't exist.

Also, how do you define "inordinate DPS in relations to their overall function?" The Immortal is supposed to kill armored units that do big, slow, single-shot damage. It's DPS allows it to do that. What's the problem?

The immortal is objectively overpowered against armored units. They have among the highest damage per cost to armored units.

Some unit will have this! It's guaranteed! There will be some unit that has the highest damage per cost to armored units. This does not make it a priori "overpowered".

So no, it is not objectively anything. You think it's overpowered, but the only evidence you have provided is to show that it is the current best unit per cost vs. armored units. And if you nerf it so that it isn't, what about the new unit that is best vs. armored? Are you going to nerf that too? And the next?

You haven't shown anything. You have no basis for saying it is overpowered outside of your personal distaste for a unit with that much damage.

A 20+20 immortal would mean that an immortal takes 4 shots to kill a roach as opposed to 3. This is a 33% nerf in effectiveness against roaches. Currently, immortals do not beat roaches cost for cost at a large enough margin that a 33% nerf would allow them to still be sufficiently effective versus roaches.

If you think that, you have clearly not been hit with an Immortal-based timing push. Roaches don't even come close with even just 3 Immortals in the group. That's because there are also Sentries with their Guardian Shields up and/or Stalkers to get their hits in. Roaches die quick and bloody.

Zerg will also be able to micro damaged roaches back, greatly gimping the effectiveness of immortals.

Again, you've clearly not been hit with an Immortal timing push. There is no "microing back" from a unit that has double your range. There is no "microing back" when you have 4 ranks of Roaches to walk through; you seem to think that units can walk through each other when they can't.

The most you may be able to do is employ some burrow micro. But since they have Immortals, Observers are also rather likely.

The health of roaches isn't even relevant to its combat with zealots. 105 hp roaches would be just as effective against zealots. They would be weaker against stalkers. Since the immortal is getting nerfed, they would be about the same. Possibly even stronger.

Um, no. If that happens, what's to stop a Zealot/Stalker/Sentry timing push besides having to turtle up with defenses? Those pushes are even faster than Immortal based ones, so even fast Lair-tech upgrades are out. Indeed, Tier 2 is out in its entirety.

With Force Fields to funnel Zerg units into poor positions, and having the advantage of categorically better units, what is to stop them from just waltzing into a Zerg base and killing it?

That's what happens when you balance things wrong. You're thinking, "If I nerf these three, everything will be fine." If it isn't fine after the nerf, then you have nerfed a unit that was balanced before.

Also zealots already counter roaches cost for cost if roaches don't kite.

No, they don't. Roaches are perfectly capable of dealing with Zealots on their Hp, armor, and damage alone. The most you might need is some basic focus-fire micro to take advantage of your range.

Marauder without stim would once again break their fight with roaches because roaches scale well into lategame, but now marauder do not.

So? Again, Marauders are not the only Terran units. Siege Tanks scale very well against Roaches, as do many other units that counter them.

A rework is too big a phrase, but you agree to the concept slight nerfs on all 3 of these units may be needed.

I accept that a lot of things might be needed, including things that have nothing to do with Roaches, Marauders, or Immortals. What I don't accept is your reasoning that anything that might be needed stems from the Roach.

In short, even if your conclusion happens to be true (the conclusion being nerf all 3 units), the logic you used to obtain it isn't why it needs to be done.

[newcomplex]

If one unit on the enemy's side can make all of your Barracks units obsolete, what good is making them to begin with?

The correct solution to this problem is to rebalanced AoE. For instance, lurkers did not invalidate the barracks. The collosus doesn't invalidate marines. Storm does. Storm particularly because Marauders cannot tank them. This is why in TvP, more terrans opt to make exclusively marauders, medivacs, and vikings, dropping marines altogether.

The correct solution is not in fact, to add siege tanks to the barracks, an analogous solution. Marauders are too well rounded of a barracks unit, their only weakness being an inability to attack air, and hurts the terran racial identity, just like how siege tanks are too specialized to be in the barracks.

Also, marauders dont "tank siege tanks". Find me a single game where marauders successfully tank siege tanks lol.

The worst removing Marauders does is force Terrans to play TvZ initially like TvP: wall in and go for Siege Tanks or Banshees, then Siege-expand. And Baneling busts are a thing of the past; Terrans know how to stop them now, just by using different building configurations.

Siege tanks are t2.5. They require an upgrade as well.

You make this sound like its not a big deal. Denying an possibility for any sort of early game offensive until large amounts of siege tanks or banshees are accumulated against the expansion oriented zerg breaks the matchup.

We're in beta now: if you can't show it in the game, then it doesn't exist.

lol? This entire discussion has been done under the pretext that their is a problem...

When was the last time you saw a high level replay of PvT where the terran player got siege tanks.

?

When was the last time you saw a high level replay of PvT where the terran player didn't make more marauders then marines

?

I perceive those to be problems. If we can't agree that those are problems, then I don't see this discussion being too productive.

Also, how do you define "inordinate DPS in relations to their overall function?" The Immortal is supposed to kill armored units that do big, slow, single-shot damage. It's DPS allows it to do that. What's the problem?

The statistical effectiveness of a unit is is not balanced through counters and inherent weaknesses, or that its counters are counterproductive to the development of this game (ie:Are the antithesis of mech of units)

If you think that, you have clearly not been hit with an Immortal-based timing push. Roaches don't even come close with even just 3 Immortals in the group. That's because there are also Sentries with their Guardian Shields up and/or Stalkers to get their hits in. Roaches die quick and bloody.

Immortal vs Roach
Calculations:

DPS: 44.04 *
Time to kill: 4.36 seconds *
Attacks to kill: 4 attacks
Time to death: 37.44 seconds *
Attacks to death: 26 attacks
Kill rate: one Immortal will kill 3 Roach(s) without dying (66 health left) **

-This is assuming guardian sheild is on

They are barely mathematically effective against roaches as it is. 10 less damage WILL BREAK THEM. Your going to need more proof then "I play zerg and I get beat with immortal timing pushes". So do I. Care to show a replay?

There is no "microing back" when you have 4 ranks of Roaches to walk through; you seem to think that units can walk through each other when they can't.

lol. Roaches won't start forming "ranks" until you have at least +15.

Um, no. If that happens, what's to stop a Zealot/Stalker/Sentry timing push besides having to turtle up with defenses? Those pushes are even faster than Immortal based ones, so even fast Lair-tech upgrades are out. Indeed, Tier 2 is out in its entirety.

And I already previously established that banelings were an extremely hard counter to this, and while it is not a reasonable expectation to counter early 2/3 gateway rushes with zergling/banelings, by the time they can push with zealot/stalker/sentries, baneling/zerglings will destroy it.

Zealot vs Roach
Calculations:

DPS: 13.64 *
Time to kill: 11.44 seconds *
Attacks to kill: 13 attacks
Time to death: 14.4 seconds *
Attacks to death: 10 attacks
Kill rate: one Zealot will kill 1 Roach(s) without dying (45 health left) **

Yeah, I realize this isn't going to be true if you focus fire. But new roaches will kill zealots TOO even WITH 105 hp if you focus fire lol. -_-.

So? Again, Marauders are not the only Terran units. Siege Tanks scale very well against Roaches, as do many other units that counter them.

Siege Tanks are extremely effective against everything. This isn't really an argument. The issue is that siege tanks are 2.5, require an upgrade, and need to actually siege.

[Nicol Bolas]

The collosus doesn't invalidate marines.

Are you kidding? You've obviously not been on the wrong end of Thermal Lances. Colossi kill Marines by the dozens.

The correct solution is not in fact, to add siege tanks to the barracks, an analogous solution. Marauders are too well rounded of a barracks unit, their only weakness being an inability to attack air, and hurts the terran racial identity, just like how siege tanks are too specialized to be in the barracks.

Now I'm confused. You analogize Marauders in the Barracks to having Siege Tanks in the Barracks. Then you say that Marauders (analogus to Siege Tanks, remember) are "too well rounded". Thing, you say that Siege Tanks, the Marauder analog, are "too specialized."

You have to pick one. Either Marauders are too well rounded and thus are generalists which, by your own logic, are perfectly acceptable in the Barracks. Or Marauders are specialists like Siege Tanks. Which is it?

lol? This entire discussion has been done under the pretext that their is a problem...

When was the last time you saw a high level replay of PvT where the terran player got siege tanks.

?

When was the last time you saw a high level replay of PvT where the terran player didn't make more marauders then marines

?

I perceive those to be problems. If we can't agree that those are problems, then I don't see this discussion being too productive.

Ignoring for the moment whether these are problems or not, let's say that everything you said is true. How does the Immortal's DPS fit into this? Immortals counter Siege mode Tanks hard. They counter them, not because of their damage output, but because of their hardened shields.

Hardened shields have essentially nothing to do with their ability to melt Roaches; that's primarily defined by their DPS. You could take Hardened shields away from Immortals, and the Immortal timing push would lose essentially none of its sting.

So, if you are saying that Roaches cause Immortals to be so buffed that Immortals hard-counter Terran Mech, thus forcing Terrans to go for Marauders, that argument is 100% bunk. The thing that lets Immortals counter Terran Mech has essentially nothing to do with the thing that lets Immortals counter Roaches.

So again, your premise is shown to be nonsense.

Now, do I consider the current PvT metagame to be a "problem"? Personally, I don't watch much SC2. The reason I paid $100+ for a Beta key (BlizzCon08 ticket) was so that I could get in on the ground floor before everything had been figured out. I find that to be the most fun and engaging period of RTS play, when new strategies come along every week and upset the balance. Watching other people play would only stifle my own creativity.

However, using some of my own Theorycrafting here, it seems to me that Siege Tanks are pretty gas intensive. Marines are not. Marines and Siege Tanks in Tank form make a pretty effective counter to Immortals. And Stalkers. And in Siege Mode, Sentries. And Zealots.

Why doesn't that get used more often? I don't know. Maybe it doesn't actually work. Or maybe it hasn't been discovered yet. Once upon a time, high-level players thought Hellions were useless; notsomuch these days. Hell, I'm still living in fear of the day that Terrans realize that Thors can be carried by Medivacs, and that two 250mm Strike Cannon shots plus 3 arm cannon shots will kill a Hatchery.

This is a month and a half into beta. Not everything has been figured out yet. The fact that things are one way does not mean that this is the only way that things can be. This is why it is important to be Blizzard. Because, while most of the high-level players are busy learning from each other's builds, with one or two trying to innovate here and there, Blizzard can actually get (for example) David Kim to develop a specific build to see if it is functional. And if it isn't, then they can start investigating why and what to change to make it functional.

The statistical effectiveness of a unit is is not balanced through counters and inherent weaknesses, or that its counters are counterproductive to the development of this game (ie:Are the antithesis of mech of units)

So again, what does this have to do with the Roach? Your problem is that the only way to stop Immortals as Terran is to make Barracks units, that Immortals hard-counter everything the Factory creates (which, btw, is not accurate. They don't hard-counter Hellions). Hardened shields have nothing to do with their effectiveness vs. Roaches.

Furthermore, Immortal Hardened shields can be destroyed with a simple EMP. One Barracks support unit. An Immortal without shields will die quick and bloody to any Factory tech. And yes, that means that you have to actually use that Barracks you built to get a Factory. Oh no; you have to diversify your tech a bit; the horror

Also, this is rather hypocritical of you. After all, you're perfectly willing to have all Barracks units be elementally weak to AoE. So willing in fact that AoE has to be "corrected" (ie: nerfed) to make this idea of Barracks play viable. But Factory units can't be elementally weak to something too? Why? Is this more of the blind, ridiculous, and obsessive Factory love from a SC1 player?

-This is assuming guardian sheild is on

It's also assuming that, wonder of wonders, the Protoss player actually allowed the Roaches to get within firing range of the Immortals. This never happens in a real game. In a real game, Roaches are stopped by Force Fields, Zealots, or Stalkers, usually some combination of those. They will never get within spitting distance of Immortals.

In short, if you properly exploit the fact that Roaches have almost the range of a melee unit, all your calculations mean nothing.

Theorycrafting doesn't work if your theory is bad. See, Immortals don't have to be able to go toe to toe with Roaches to kill them. They just have to have blockers and longer range.

Now I understand where your "logic" is coming from. You're looking at it as a simple, standup Roach vs. Marauder or Immortal vs. Marauder or Immortal vs. Roach. This simply is not how the game is played.

Yes, if a Protoss player marches 5 Immortals and nothing else into my base, I could probably take them with Roaches. Cost-for-cost. But if they march in 3 Immortals backed by Zealots and Sentries, things change. They change a lot.

Real game situations matter, not one-on-one unit duels or other artificial constructs.

lol. Roaches won't start forming "ranks" until you have at least +15.

Maybe if you're out in the field, but most choke points (you know, those things in front of your base where you're trying to defend. Or the things Protoss players can make at will) don't really allow that. You may get 6 across before they have to stack.

But new roaches will kill zealots TOO even WITH 105 hp if you focus fire lol. -_-.

[b]Bolding your words doesn't make them true.[b]

And what you're talking about is the basic property of ranged units. That being, by the fact that they have range, more of them can shoot at shorter ranged units than can shoot back at them. The property is intrinsic: more ranged units (up to a ball big enough ) is more powerful than more melee units. This is regardless of what those ranged units are or how much damage they do. Eventually, you reach a critical mass.

The issue is that siege tanks are 2.5, require an upgrade, and need to actually siege.

First, the placement of STs in the tree never stopped Terrans in SC1 from getting them ASAP vs. Protoss. Second, Siege Tanks very much do not need to Siege to kill Roaches. They do lots of damage with their regular gun, at over 2x the Roach's range. Roaches simply will not be able to fire back.

Third, again, getting Siege Mode to stop Dragoon harassment of the wall-in and Siege expanding never stopped Terrans in SC1.

I'm not suggesting that this is the way it should be. But stop acting like the balance is something so fragile that if something is slightly overpowered the whole game implodes. One of the reasons that SC1 has lasted so long is that it is actually quite difficult to make the game imbalanced at higher levels of play (unless you are intentionally trying to break it, of course). People adapt, and skilled players more than others.

[phazonjunkie]

Regarding the marauder, I think you do have a point. Ostensibly, one of their purposes is to support marines, keeping them alive and increase their effectiveness and viability late game. But due to their resilience, high dps, and all around effectiveness in most match ups they seem have the exact opposite effect, basically rendering marines unnecessary.

[newcomplex]

Now I'm confused. You analogize Marauders in the Barracks to having Siege Tanks in the Barracks. Then you say that Marauders (analogus to Siege Tanks, remember) are "too well rounded". Thing, you say that Siege Tanks, the Marauder analog, are "too specialized."

You have to pick one. Either Marauders are too well rounded and thus are generalists which, by your own logic, are perfectly acceptable in the Barracks. Or Marauders are specialists like Siege Tanks. Which is it?

This doesn't even make sense.

Marauders lack counters (specifically in PvT), hence are "too well rounded". Siegetanks may not lack counters, (they don't), but that isn't the point of contention. The siege tank fulfills a too dynamic role. It changes the dynamic of the game. That specialization does not belong in such a early tier. I don't understand how thats a hard concept. Their is no contradiction, its too seperate statements.

Ignoring for the moment whether these are problems or not, let's say that everything you said is true. How does the Immortal's DPS fit into this? Immortals counter Siege mode Tanks hard. They counter them, not because of their damage output, but because of their hardened shields.

Hardened shields have essentially nothing to do with their ability to melt Roaches; that's primarily defined by their DPS. You could take Hardened shields away from Immortals, and the Immortal timing push would lose essentially none of its sting.

No, they hard counter siege tanks because they 3 shot them. I assure you, they would not hard counter siege tanks should they do say, 25 damage flat.

They combine two elements. The first one is survivability, the other is enormous DPS. That is what fundamentally breaks them. The DPS part needs to be removed. Removing the sheilds would really accomplish the same effect, but would weaken their identity.

The thing that lets Immortals counter Terran Mech has essentially nothing to do with the thing that lets Immortals counter Roaches.

No. This just wrong. 3 shotting tanks is what allows them to counter mech way more then their shield does. Look, I run 3 immortals into your tank line, and your tanks die. Like, instantly. That is what allows them to counter terran mech. Then, I send the rest of my forces in. Shields are almost never present for more then ~2-3 hits due to emp.

You know what, your next question answers this one.

Why doesn't that get used more often? I don't know. Maybe it doesn't actually work. Or maybe it hasn't been discovered yet. Once upon a time, high-level players thought Hellions were useless; notsomuch these days. Hell, I'm still living in fear of the day that Terrans realize that Thors can be carried by Medivacs, and that two 250mm Strike Cannon shots plus 3 arm cannon shots will kill a Hatchery..

Because Immortals do 50 damage. Your main race is zerg. Please don't pretend you have a wider range of experience. You don't. The thing that kills tanks isn't the shields, the shields are almost never their for more then 3 shots due to EMP anyway. The shields are a nice bonus.

Watching other people play would only stifle my own creativity.

Do you actually think this? "I don't go to school, learning what other people think would stifle my own creativity".

Progress is gained by standing on the shoulder's of giants.

This is a month and a half into beta. Not everything has been figured out yet. The fact that things are one way does not mean that this is the only way that things can be. This is why it is important to be Blizzard. Because, while most of the high-level players are busy learning from each other's builds, with one or two trying to innovate here and there, Blizzard can actually get (for example) David Kim to develop a specific build to see if it is functional. And if it isn't, then they can start investigating why and what to change to make it functional.

So your suggestion is like The Mauls. "THIS IS BETA ITS ONLY BEEN A MONTH SO NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY"RE DOING, AND ALL COMMENTS ABOUT BALANCE ARE INVALID".

So again, what does this have to do with the Roach? Your problem is that the only way to stop Immortals as Terran is to make Barracks units, that Immortals hard-counter everything the Factory creates (which, btw, is not accurate. They don't hard-counter Hellions). Hardened shields have nothing to do with their effectiveness vs. Roaches.

Wow. Thats my point. Mech play is no longer viable. You respond "just make a lot of marines". Seriously?

Diversifying is great, but they'res a limit, you can't possible expect someone to get tanks, the rest of the mech units, marines, and medivacs to support marines. Thats absurd.

Furthermore, Immortal Hardened shields can be destroyed with a simple EMP. One Barracks support unit. An Immortal without shields will die quick and bloody to any Factory tech. And yes, that means that you have to actually use that Barracks you built to get a Factory. Oh no; you have to diversify your tech a bit; the horror

You have quite the superiority complex here. Has it ever occurred to you that your not the only one to think of using EMP, a spell that does 100 shield damage, on immortals, a unit that has precisely 100 shields? Even with EMP, Mech play is unusable. Because of the fact that immortals do FIFTY DAMAGE.

Also, this is rather hypocritical of you. After all, you're perfectly willing to have all Barracks units be elementally weak to AoE. So willing in fact that AoE has to be "corrected" (ie: nerfed) to make this idea of Barracks play viable. But Factory units can't be elementally weak to something too? Why? Is this more of the blind, ridiculous, and obsessive Factory love from a SC1 player?

Elementally weak? They are, they lack mobility. Thats a intrinsic weakness. Are you telling me the immortals +30 damage against armored is "intrinsic"? This isn't "blind love", this is realizing that terran can potentially accommodate two incredibly distinctive playstyles, and isn't, because the immortal does too much damage.

It's also assuming that, wonder of wonders, the Protoss player actually allowed the Roaches to get within firing range of the Immortals. This never happens in a real game. In a real game, Roaches are stopped by Force Fields, Zealots, or Stalkers, usually some combination of those. They will never get within spitting distance of Immortals.

wow do you think I don't play this game or something? Ok, the protoss has 3 immortals. What else is going to have? Enough zealots to physically stop your roaches? Then kite back and kill, you move faster then the immortal on creep. Are you seriously suggesting that roaches are unable to hit an immortal in a game? This is just so wrong. Have you even watched a high level game? Oh yeah, nevermind.

Maybe if you're out in the field, but most choke points (you know, those things in front of your base where you're trying to defend. Or the things Protoss players can make at will) don't really allow that. You may get 6 across before they have to stack.

....The smallest expansion choke, the LT choke, is 10x1. (And if you haven't expanded by the time protoss get 3 immortals, your doing it wrong) Roaches are smaller then 1x1. No. What game are you playing?

And what you're talking about is the basic property of ranged units. That being, by the fact that they have range, more of them can shoot at shorter ranged units than can shoot back at them. The property is intrinsic: more ranged units (up to a ball big enough ) is more powerful than more melee units. This is regardless of what those ranged units are or how much damage they do. Eventually, you reach a critical mass.

yea.

k.

So?

First, the placement of STs in the tree never stopped Terrans in SC1 from getting them ASAP vs. Protoss. Second, Siege Tanks very much do not need to Siege to kill Roaches. They do lots of damage with their regular gun, at over 2x the Roach's range. Roaches simply will not be able to fire back.

Third, again, getting Siege Mode to stop Dragoon harassment of the wall-in and Siege expanding never stopped Terrans in SC1.

I'm not suggesting that this is the way it should be. But stop acting like the balance is something so fragile that if something is slightly overpowered the whole game implodes. One of the reasons that SC1 has lasted so long is that it is actually quite difficult to make the game imbalanced at higher levels of play (unless you are intentionally trying to break it, of course). People adapt, and skilled players more than others.

The removal of the Marauder isnt "slight". And no, unsiege tanked are terrible against roaches. Your doing 15 DPS. Roaches do 8 DPS. Siege tanks cost a lot more then roaches.

And toss isn't zerg. Toss aren't expansion oriented. The earliest you could get tanks would be at ~4:30, 5 until units arrive. Until ~4 minutes, the zerg can afford to sink every piece of money into eco, getting a 2 saturated bases.