Terran Versatility -- Why?

[JackhammerIV]

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.

[mr. peasant]

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.

[Todie]

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.

[flak4321]

@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.

[flak4321]

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.

[Wankey]

I agree, Zealot charge should be played controlled *only* with a much longer cool down.

[Norfindel]

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

[Todie]

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.

[flak4321]

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.

[flak4321]

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.