Terran is the strongest it has ever been in the game. And here you are complaining? Lol.
If i was free winning i wouldnt feel the need to be on this forum would i now?
The difference is clear you dont even get the basics of PvT. And you are complaining because you arent getting cattered to autowin every game you play.
you are here to try to defend your broken race so it doesnât get fixedâŚ
My race isnt broken.
Its clear in the other thread youve proven that the only thing you do is spam MMM and expect to get freewins. without actually properly scouting or reacting to your opponents build.
You have never used a ghost in your life, yet you complain about high templar.
The extra health is better because the main problem with Vikings compared to other air units is that they are excessively vulnerable to spells like Storm, Fungal, and Parasitic Bomb due to their slower speed and/or lower health compared to most other air units.
In most of the other edge cases, that 10 health is also better than 1 armor.
Hi Terranic. Nice to see you around again.
True, but I donât think that is necessarily a bad thing, particularly due to the inherent range advantage that vikings have over most non-massive air units. Having a clear cut counter is rarely a bad thing unless it was like the immortal of Old against the siege tank in which the immoetal was so hard a counter that it wasnât even worth making siege tanks.
Siege Tanks were relatively powerful in SC1 than SC2. If you are complaining about Tanks in SC2 you clearly never played SC1.
Range+Mobility.
Units have 4 core stats: Range, DPS/burst, Mobility, and durability. Only 2 of these get to be decent, or the result will be a broken unit.
Siege Tanks have long range and high DPS, but they suffer from low durability and being completely immobile. Their abusable friendly-fire (further lowering the armyâs effective durability) and minimum range are further disadvantages that justify the higher burst.
Tempests used to have long range + durability; now they have long range + decent mobility. Neither design can justify a high damage output, so to compare the Tempest to the Siege Tank without considering this is completely dishonest.
As an aside, the current Tempest is a bit too weak (too much overkill, and attack speed could use a mild buff; so Iâm in favor of a beam attack+attack-speed buff for it), but that does not excuse your dishonesty in the slightest.
No, it is not a bad thing for Vikings to have a weakness, but it is bad for units to be hard-countered too heavily. Vikings arguably were before that 10 health buff.
Keep in mind that Blizzard actually considered an additional 15 health buff (which fortunately didnât go through) because of that weakness.
That is a fair point. Prior to the buff vikings werenât being considered at all in favour of liberators. Part of that as as a direct result of the buff, and part of that is that the liberatorâs numerous nerfs have made it significantly less favourable, so there is now a legitimate choice between libs and vikings for dealing with things like colossus.
On another note, I still believe they nerfed the Lib AA far to hard. They should have a decreasing damage radius similar to that of the siege tank, instead of just a flat damage area that got nuked into oblivion. Now we just have a meme AA attack on them.
Hey look extreme bias.
You realise why all aoe does less damage? because of clumping. Understand this simple concept please.
Stating siege tanks have low durability when you compare them cost for cost to tempest health wise 300 hp, vs the 175 of a single tank is disingenuous aswell.
Tempest do not have long range versus ground. its funny how you dont even mention this.
Pretending AoE of tanks is bad because it can splash your own units⌠how biased do you actually want to be?
Id much preffer tanks to not have AoE without being able to splash onto your own units. If you think its bad that tanks do AoE lets nerf it shall we?
Oh wait but now you realise the actuall power of the tank is caused by the AoE, especially in larger numbers, and you want to keep it?
Why dont we give tempest AoE with the ability to actually damage friendly is that any better?
The point is really simple, you are trying to compare tempests Low single target dps vs high burst AoE of tanks while cost for cost they practically cost the same.
Tanks outrange tempest in terms of range versus ground.
Tanks do more dps to anything thats ground.
Tanks have an easier tech path, you basically get them for free, tempest require the highest tech of protoss in the game. (the same tech you require for mothership remember)
And tanks do splash.
Except when you mass liberator, like 200/200 you can still instantly kill anything in the air due to the AoE. Clumped up carriers? NP. Clumped up tempest. NP.
A liberator does 10 damage to air a carrier has 450 health. If you have 23 liberators you can two shot all of them. The splash radius is pretty low. but all air clumps. Interceptors immediatly melt once you get 10+ liberators.
Mutas also get wrecked by the liberators splash. 120 health means you need 12 liberators to one shot a clump of them.
stating the Anti air attack of liberator is a meme is caused because of the broken nature of what thors can do versus air in terms of DPS.
Viking health increase was added because of clumping of air units. And liberators overshadowing vikings in useablity and dps (because of splash)
Liberators AA attack should never get buffed. Ever.
You are perhaps the most biased whiner on the entire forum. Every single one of your posts is a complaint, usually involving multiple false equivalencies; so being called biased by you is like being a piece of silverware accused of being black by a pot.
That is flat out wrong.
The major reason why spells like Storm had to be weakened is smart-casting. SC1 units will waste all of their spells unless you individually select the casters each time; making casters much harder to use and less efficient in larger engagements.
For all other units it comes down to the design of the unit in question.
For instance, Colossus have significantly more mobility and durability than Reavers, and they have a more efficient attack on top of it; so they cannot be balanced with nearly as much raw damage output.
Disruptors are also more mobile than Reavers, have longer range than Reavers, and have flat damage over their entire area (instead of the Reaverâs 100%/50%/25% split); so they are balanced out by a much longer cooldown and more difficult control-scheme instead.
Siege Tank and Lurkers (which are both direct analogs of SC1 units) are both individually stronger and stronger in terms of DPS for cost in StarCraft II than in SC1. This was necessary to deal with the very âimproved path-findingâ that you just claimed required âall splash to be weakenedâ. SC1 Siege Tanks are relatively stronger only because the path-finding works in their favor, making it much harder enemy units (both ranged and melee) to work their way close enough to attack the Tanks. Otherwise you need about a 3:2 margin of Tanks to have a similar damage output over time.
SC2 Lurkers in particular are significantly stronger than SC1 Lurkers by every single metric. Because they have to be. The path-finding in SC1 makes it very hard to maneuver to take advantage of the SC1 Lurkerâs limited range and slow attack, but that is so easy in the SC2 engine that Lurkers simply are not viable without at least 8 range.
10 range is long range. Period!
Tempests have decent mobility and they are flying (which enhances their mobility further and enables them to clump as needed).
Guess which units can hit a Siege Tank? Just about everything. In addition, many ground units (Zealots, Broodlings, Zerglings, and Ultralisks in particular, if you ignore micro with ranged units that can also be used to force FF) can easily force friendly fire on both the Siege Tanks and the units supporting them.
In contrast, only a subset of units can hit air, and many of those have limitations or efficiency issues that make them less desirable in ground combat.
Every single Terran unit with the exception of the Hellbat is extremely vulnerable to splash damage from Siege Tanks. Yes, this is a weakness that can be abused. The very first unit in your arsenal (Chargelots) excel at exploiting that.
Thatâs debatable. If the Liberatorâs air attack was split into 100%, 50%, and 25% damage zones, then Liberators at 7 or 5+2v.L (up from 5) would actually be weaker in most cases than the current 5 damage Liberator. This is what Miro was specifically suggesting.
Corsairs and Valkyries are a good comparison. Those units dealt 100% damage in a very small radius and only 50% or 25% damage to most units; so the practical DPS was much lower than it was on paper.
You are correct in the term of smart-casting. They indeed made AoE weaker because of being able to cast multiple spells on multiple units in a group.
However coincidentally this was also required due to ease of pathing and clumping in highsight.
However disruptors dont even come close to reavers potential harrass damage.
Reaver shots, albeit slow, could devastate entire worker lines. You will never see a disruptor capable of getting a shot off like that.
Siege tanks should have never been buffed in terms of dps output. They dictate every matchup terran plays in.
Siege Tanks always dictate every match-up Terran plays in, except when they are blatantly underpowered. They are a key component of the race, which is supposed to be very good for defending and zone control.
I think I know what youâre problem is. You hate StarCraft.
They are not a key component for terran in starcraft 2 at all. In its entire lifespan siege tanks where never used versus protoss because of the immortal.
Only recently when the immortals got nerfed versus tanks and the damage increase in tanks. You started seeing them in PvT.
Pretending tanks have always had this much of an impact in the game is a blatant lie.
Yes, because that match-up was fundamentally broken.
Hence Terran was relying entirely on harass or cases where Protoss lacked or lost splash damage.
The WOL and HOTS Immortal is perhaps the most broken unit design any unit in StarCraft has ever had. And I am including the Warhound in that by the way. The reason why the Warhound was an overpowered mess in HOTS beta is because Blizzard tried to balance it to take on Immortals.
The match was never fundamentally broken back then.
It is now however.
The reason why terran rellies on harrass is because there entire race is made out of units wich sole purpose is to harrass to trade efficiently.
The WoL and HotS immortal wasnt broken at all. The mere idea you state that when you would never see them in large numbers except versus mech is just deceitfull behaviour from your side.
The collosi was the pick in basically every scenario over immortals so stop lying.
The Immortal was fundamentally broken. It single-handedly hard-countered half of a race so badly that it couldnât ever be used; and that was on top of Siege Tanks being downright weak in both WOL and HOTS.
Hardened Shields was broken for the exact same reason that PDD was broken. Both mechanics had mitigation-scaling based on the attacker such that if they were balanced to be useful against low damage units (which they both were), then they reduced ridiculous amounts of damage from higher damage units.
In the Immortalâs case. Hardened Shields was balanced for units that deal 20 damage or less, which is why the replacement Barrier blocks 100 damage, and not 400-750 damage.
In PDDâs case the problem was even worse, because PDD could protect any unit, there were random exceptions to certain ranged attacks seemingly without reason, and the amount of damage that could be blocked scaled from between 5 damage (Phoenix) and 67 damage. Obviously Iâm glad both mechanics are gone.
Hardened Shields was broken against Mech, Protoss (albeit limited to DTs, Archons, and Immortals), and Ultralisks.
Hardened Shields did not happen to affect Bio. Hence is was irrelevant when Terran only used Bio units. That does not make the mechanic balanced.
To use a simple comparison: If EMP still drained all energy and all shields at a 2.0 radius, but Protoss never made Colossus, Carriers, HT, Sentries, Oracles, or Archons again. Would it be balanced? Obviously not!
Except what you just described is exacly what is being done to protoss because of this insincere stance of yours.
Protoss collosi, carrier, ht, oracle and archon got nerfed to favour T so hard that its better to just spam zealots.
Why do you whine so much?
Clearly it is not.
Is a huge section of Protoss completely unviable because of some broken mechanic? No, of course not.
As for each unit you listed:
Archons were never nerfed.
(HT) Feedback was nerfed because it was previously balanced for 250/200/4 Dark Archons without smart-casting. Dark Archons were more expensive than any unit that can be one-shot by the original Feedback. HT are half the price of Dark Archons and cheaper than almost every unit Feedback can even target (the exceptions are Medivacs, Sentries, Queens, and Overseers, everything else with energy is more expensive than HT); so it was perfectly reasonable to tone down this ability and it is questionable why they didnât do it at launch.
Carriers were explicitly nerfed because of PvZ, not PvT. I donât agree with that nerf at this point. I defer to Asamu, who told me it was a playstyle issue (off forums) where Zerg were getting surprised without armor upgrades, anti-air, or caster support on time rather than a case where Carriers were too strong; so lobby away to revert that nerf.
Colossus were changed for playstyle reasons. They more or less force every Protoss army into the same death-ball style; which was frankly hated by the community. Blizzard tried to specialize the unit and arguably overdid it.
Oracles: You can also throw Adepts and Hellions into the list of units that were nerfed because of SCVs. SCVs are the slowest workers to produce, the Command Center needs to stall production to upgrade for the macro mechanic, and SCVs regularly need to regularly leave the mineral fields for long stretches of time to construct buildings. This makes Terranâs initial buildup much slower than the other races and makes early worker losses (I only mean early ones) more substantial. If Oracles actually received upgrades their late-game killing potential would even out. Adepts do it with +1, whereas Hellions simply donât if the other Terran player keeps up on Infantry upgrades.