Make cc’s 400 again and give us tech reactors. Make them cost double normal addons or even triple. This would help us keep up production with zerg and toss.
1 Like
If you arent able to keep up in production with your opponent it’s because of one of 3 things.
1: you have less income than they do.
2: You do not have enough production facilities to use your income.
or 3: you are failing to use the production facilities you do have.
Tech reactors are not a needed change.
2 Likes
You’re assuming your conclusion. The game isn’t balanced because production differences can’t exist; you’re saying production differences can’t exist because the game is balanced. It’s entirely possible for a production gap to result from the races’ production mechanics rather than player error.
Did I use the word balance, or balanced? I did not.
Income and production facilities are the only two bottlenecks to unit production. Once bases get saturated terran has more income per base than the other races because of MULES, and more importantly tech reactors do not affect income in any way, so if there is a discrepancy there then this solution does not address it.
If you don’t have enough production facilities to spend all your income, that is strictly user error. There is zero reason to be floating hundreds of minerals trying to make marines out of one barracks. You can make more production.
2 Likes
By implying that it’s a user error you directly imply that it’s not a balance error. You’re treating production mechanics as if they’re irrelevant. They’re not. “Build more Barracks” is one solution, but it isn’t proof the underlying production systems are equally efficient. If one race requires significantly more infrastructure to convert the same income into units, that’s a design difference, not automatically player error. My suggestion is about reducing that infrastructure burden, not increasing income.
The races aren’t making the same units to begin with. You’re trying to compare apples and oranges. If you want to say that roaches are too cheap, fine, that’s at least a position that can be logically derived from data. If you want to say that marauders are too weak for their cost, go ahead and try and support that argument, go nuts. You could even try and argue that terran productions facilities are too expensive. You would lose that argument, but you could try and make it.
Your fundamental misunderstanding here is that they are not intended to be equally efficient. Different units are different, and the races are asymmetrical.
3 Likes
Exactly—they aren’t equally efficient. That’s the point. The fact that the races are asymmetrical doesn’t mean every asymmetry is perfectly balanced. Some asymmetries are strengths, others are weaknesses. My suggestion is that Terran’s production infrastructure is one of those weaknesses and that Tech Reactors could address it. Saying “the races are asymmetrical” doesn’t demonstrate that the current asymmetry is the correct one.
You keep citing MULEs as Terran’s economic advantage, but my proposal explicitly reduces that advantage by restoring the 400-mineral Command Center. I’m trading some economic tempo for better production infrastructure. If you think MULE income already overcompensates, then returning the CC to 400 should make the production buff easier to justify, not harder.
No, you aren’t, because the production infrastructure’s efficiency is not the bottleneck. If you don’t have the money, you can’t spend it no matter how much production you have, and if you have more money than you can spend, you can already make more production to spend it.
I get it, tech reactors are cool sounding, but this doesn’t actually address any problems.
2 Likes
You’re assuming the production infrastructure can’t be the bottleneck because players can always build more production. That’s the point in dispute. Building more Barracks has a cost in minerals, build time, SCV time, and map space. If another race can convert the same economy into units with less infrastructure investment, then production infrastructure itself is part of the balance equation. I’ve had games where I crippled a Zerg’s economy, spent every mineral I had, and they still recovered workers and army faster than I could.
Speaking as a Terran, the problem wasn’t production before, but economy. This was why the 300 mineral CC was introduced. It does go way, way to far however.
3 Likes
It wasn’t a problem before the patch that increased increased larva production. 300 mineral cc’s doesn’t help that.
You can’t fast expand against an aggressive Zerg no matter how cheap a cc is now, and this seasons tournament has shown that.
Well gosh, it sounds like its actually an income discrepancy then, exactly like I was saying.
2 Likes
How is that income discrepancy? It doesn’t matter what the cc cost is, it could be free and you can’t expand.
Well you see, when you can’t expand, you have less income. I genuinely don’t understand how you aren’t getting this.
Now you are being circular, yes, you can’t expand because you can’t produce the same amount of units off the same amount of income. What part of that aren’t you getting?
No, you’re just obtuse. If you’re spending the money that you have, then your production is not the reason you can’t expand. If you aren’t spending all your money then one, you probably shouldnt be trying to expand, and two, that’s a skill issue.
But I said, I was spending all the money I had. Okay, let’s go around the merry-go-round again.
Then clearly your production was not the issue! Giving you more production would not have let you expand, because you couldnt afford to use it. Having 30 barracks means nothing if you only have 100 minerals to spend.
2 Likes