Sounds like one of the dumbest fucking things ever.
And here I had thought that Fable 3 had reached the pinnacle of suckdom, guess they deserve some credit for topping that abortion of a game.
Mike17032's forum posts
Done plenty of watching and plenty of playing. The lack of Toss in most of the end season GSL matches would seem to indicate there is a problem. Sure a few great players make it in, but when you look at the overall ratios of what races are there and what arn't, a pattern becomes clear.
The idea that it is OK that a race get blown away in the early game with no available counters is just idiotic. I can't believe I have to dumb things down this far, but T3 balance is not the same as T1 balance. Have you people ever played a game before?
The difference is that at T3, you still have your T1 and T2 options. Going down in the tech tree to deal with something is easy.
At T1, you can't just whip out T3 units because you don't have them yet. So if countering your opponents T1 requires two tech levels higher than you can have at that point, something is wrong. The buff to charge is clearly meant to address this, but charge also hits the field quite late.
" Stalkers are not a problem when your Terran. Marauders beat stalkers and Terrans can wall in early on. Tips? Work on a strong opening build to have a defensive start. Work on your macro-management to keep the Marauder-Stalker ratio in your favor. Try something different? Wall in and go for +1 Attack early on, and then mass Marauder rush them. "
I will add that you really want Concussive Shell early vs Toss, because it will not only nullify Zealots but also prevent him from playing kite games with Stalkers. That upgrade is very good vs Toss.
I don't know if you noticed, but 2 roaches don't cost as much as one stalker.
Also, if you want to suppose than 1 stalker equals 2 roaches: again, stalkers lose no health while killing all the roaches. Watch these two games.
Not quite, no. But it is very close to that. And again, for cost Roaches beat Stalkers. This isn't something that is up for debate, it is simple fact. Toss need either Immortals, VRs, or Coli to stop Roach play from Zergs.
And grats on finding someone who knew how to micro their stalkers vs someone who didn't know how to micro Roaches (or was too lazy to research burrow, something that hits the field long before blink). Better players rolling scrubs isn't good evidence for unit balance.
"Oh, so you're saying that a unit is bad because it takes too many shots to kill a worker with it?
Interesting concept there.
By your definition dark templar is the best unit in the game, and stalkers are better than marauders. "
No, just proving you wrong on stalkers "hitting hard". They don't , at all. Not even against armored where they get a terribly scaling bonus. It is hard to find a unit that does lower DPS, because you can't. They have the lowest unarmored DPS in the game almost, two workers do almost as much. Is this the part where you tell me DPS doesn't matter and there are other factors involved in "hitting hard"?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t8Z5bsJL0-2LyqHW1DWUAYA&output=html
" Uhm, nope. "
Your utter lack of evidence has totally convinced me that Toss AA is great. Even though they are the only race with no gas free AA units, and ground units that flat out lose to anything with the ability to hit them back.
" It's not a problem at all, really. I haven't heard anyone complain that stalkers are bad AA because they cost gas. Except you, that is."
Then you must not understand the game well, or spend much time reading the Battle.net forums. Having a gas cost on a unit is a big difference vs one that does not, and Toss is already very gas heavy. If I have to explain why it matters, you wouldn't understand it anyway.
Btw they are not "bad" because they cost gas, they are bad because they lose for cost to all flying units. The fact that they cost gas is only adding insult to injury. The idea that you need "exact" cost is just silly, not sure what kind of logic you are trying to use but it's failing.
" Every unit in the game is less effective without micro, actually. When you're buying a unit, you're not only paying only for damage and health, you know. I don't know why you're so obssessed with comparing units based solely on their damage, health and cost. In SC II there are way too many factors in such equasion, and there is no possible way to state if one unit is better than the other. Every unit has its advantages and disadvantages. ""
Look up, thats my point going right over your head. No, I don't expect you to understand. But given the many other things you seem to not understand about SC2 I wouldn't worry about this one too much.
Why would I simply use zealots and stalkers against an MMM army? I am baffled by whatever point you are trying to make as you seem to force any example into a scenario that players do their best not to find themselves in. If you're saying any one unit should be able to fight any other unit of equal cost to a standstill without taking into consideration abilities and unit control, then what you have in mind is a dull game that no one will want to play. "
Because at the point he can make MM, your only options are Stalkers and Zealots with Sentry support. Right now FF is the crutch keeping Toss in the early game, and that is also bad design because the counters to FF don't hit the game till much later.
I am saying that no race should dominate any other at a given tier, that is bad game design.
@imsh_pl said:
Different kinds of units are good in different situations. Yeah, mass marine/marauder will propably kill mass zealot/stalker/sentry. However, it is a foolish statement to suppose that both players will stay on 'tier /1.5' (yuck, hate that word) through the whole game. When your opponent is massing barracks units, why wouldn't you go for something that kills them faster? Why would you want to stay on 'T1.5'? You can't assume that every 'tier' of units for every race has to be equal throughout the whole game. The game would be too boring this way. You have to adapt to your opponent's strategy, including army composition. If your opponent is going mass MMM, you have time to get units/abilities/whatever to deal with their army composition properly. I don't see how that is a balance issue. "
Actually yes, all tiers should be equal for all races. Thats the point. If one race can roflstomp another with it's T1.5 (valid term btw), that is broken. And Terrans often do go an entire game not moving beyond T1.5 because Marines and Marauders are that good.
There is no strategy to adapt too if you can't make your counter units yet. That is the very definition of a balance issue.
" @Mike17032 said:" The problem with Toss gateway units is that things start to break down when your opponents learn how to Micro better. Without micro zealots own marines and marauders, but once the Terrans you are facing learn how to kite that changes and zealots are helplessly kited down while doing almost no damage even with charge). If you are working your way up the ladder, sooner or later you are going to hit the wall where people have learned how to counter your gateway units. At that point you can either go for Robo or Stargate play or pick a better balanced race. SC2 is fun and it is good that micro is so important, but when micro breaks unit balance there are serious problems. "I think what you mean to say is Marine Marauders are good in mid sizes where micro as you have stated is possible. When it becomes much larger, 200/200 armies, they lose their effectiveness since they are so easily zoned by force fields and shredded by storm. I'm not sure what you mean by "you can go for robo or stargate" when people learn to "counter gateway units." Exactly what tech path you decide on going up should be incorporated into your overall plan from the start. Sticking with just gateway until you're clearly losing is an issue of poor play, not balance. "
Actually without T3 support things only get worse for Toss the more units there are. MMM scales so much better than Toss T1.5 does that your army will simply melt before it even does damage. Not to mention that a Toss 200 army costs significantly more than a Terran 200 supply army.
Toss require T3 to take on Terran T1.5, and that is a balance issue.
@Donos said:
" @Mike17032 said:If it doesn't walk like a support unit, swim like a support unit or quack like a support unit, maybe it's not a support unit. "They are designed to be a ranged support unit, they should hit harder and die faster. Their mobility is also too good. "
"Ranged support" make of 2 of the 3 words in the tooltip. One would assume that is what Blizzard designed it to be.
@imsh_pl said:
" @Mike17032 said:
You seem to be the guy to whom comparing 2 units boils down to comparing their damage and mineral/gas cost and counting their overall dps." @imsh_pl: " Also, stalkers win a fight vs roaches easily. That 'lose to workers' statement is really bold too, imo." Stalkers are flat out destroyed by Roaches of EQUAL COST. Sure if you send even numbers the Stalkers come out slightly ahead, but a Stalker costs 2x what a roach does. When out numbered 2-1 Stalkers get smashed quickly. The fight isn't even close, Stalkers get annihilated. As for workers beating them for cost, ya in practical terms that is not true. But take 4 works and send them on a stalker (without micro) and the workers win. Things turn for the stalkers when numbers grow, but the point still stands. "
Micro says hi.
Supply says hi.
Zerg larvae say hi.
Yes, I would be the guy who compares the single most important aspect of what is considered a counter to what, cost. For cost, Stalkers flat out lose to roaches.
"Lololol it's exactly the opposite.
They hit hard. And die not so slowly, too. "
Yes, taking 4 shots to kill a worker is "hitting hard". Interesting concept there. They also scale terribly with upgrades, while roaches don't.
" And toss AA is not awful.
Take the numbers out of your head! You can't say that "unit A costs X money and X gas, therefore unit B is better because it's cheaper". It is just a stupid way to compare units, because they do not boil down to only DPS and health. "
No, it boils down to a lot of of things. And yes, Toss have by far the worst AA of all 3 races. They are the only race to lack a gas free unit that can defend against air harass. That alone is a huge problem. Add in the fact that stalkers are countered for cost by any air unit that has the ability to hit them and things get worse.
" Give me a single sane reason why I wouldn't micro my stalker when it's being attacked by 4 workers. Just one. The point doesn't 'still stand' because you're trying to describe a situation which would never occur. ""
Thats the point, that without micro they are less effective (in small numbers of course) in combat than workers. That is just sad.
Stalkers are a poorly designed unit that leave a large gap in the protoss T1.5 tree. They are the main reason that Terran T1 mops the floor with Toss.
" 4gate is one of the strongest things out there. Don't blame race. Might be your opponents if you've been winning recently, ladder might have bumped you up too much. Just practice more, don't think about who to blame. "
4 gate will only take you so far. Once you hit the point where people know how to (easily) counter it, you are in trouble. 4 gate gets torn to pieces by a lot of builds out there, and the lack of detection is often fatal. "OMG WHAT ARE THESE INVISIBLE BIRDS THAT RAIN DEATH FROM THE SKY???".
The 4gate build the OP is using is basically a form of all in cheese, and that is why he is losing. Cutting probe production is almost never a good idea. Once you get high enough on the ladder players learn how to easily counter a 4gate and then you are toast.
If you really want 1base play try 2 gate robo or even 2 gate stargate. Or try a 1gate fast expand, that is very effective against terran. Just be careful vs zerg doing that.
Do things like drop an expo before you push out to attack. When you are ahead, don't try to win outright. Instead get further ahead.
The problem with Toss gateway units is that things start to break down when your opponents learn how to Micro better.
Without micro zealots own marines and marauders, but once the Terrans you are facing learn how to kite that changes and zealots are helplessly kited down while doing almost no damage even with charge).
If you are working your way up the ladder, sooner or later you are going to hit the wall where people have learned how to counter your gateway units. At that point you can either go for Robo or Stargate play or pick a better balanced race. SC2 is fun and it is good that micro is so important, but when micro breaks unit balance there are serious problems.
" @MementoMori: He just started playing when this was posted, give the guy a break.
@imsh_pl: The stalker mobility is what makes them awesome, I think. Blink, and the fact that they're so damn fast just makes them a pain to deal with as a terran. They can outmaneuver a mech army, warp in to deflect drops, and destroy vikings trying to target a colossus with ease. Good unit. I hate it. "
Stalkers are a poorly designed unit. They move too fast, are too durable, and worst of all do far too little damage. They are designed to be a ranged support unit, they should hit harder and die faster. Their mobility is also too good. They are also the reason Toss AA is awful, they are counted for cost by anything that can hit them from the air.
Zealots on the other hand are far too slow, even with Charge (and charge comes too late).
Right now Terran micro renders all Toss T1 counterable by either Marines or Marauders. FF is the crutch that keep Toss in the early game, and that is poorly designed too because it is too powerful before its later counters hit the field.
Toss needs some major reworking in their units and when they get their tech upgrades. Not buffed so much as changed.
Log in to comment