Is not remotely balanced at the moment. Even though base-trading is one of the most common strategies in WC3 both professionally and on ladder.
Base trading is also something that people have very strong reactions to as well, since it affects gameplay enjoyability and audience enjoyment so much.
Why is such an obviously critical issue utterly unaddressed? HU and Orc overwhelmingly out base-trade NE and UD.
—Dragon hawks out-range and shut down towers with cloud so utterly that 1-2 dragon hawks can stop 10+ towers from a distance with 0 risk.
—Raiders are fast moving CC, hero killing, and siege units that will be made for combat reasons anyways, and just happens to give Orc the highest siege damage by default as a bonus.
—Would it be fun if a single Chimera can shutdown a HU expansion’s 5 towers on its own? Would it be fun if mountain giants did as much siege DPS as tanks per food so that it only takes 2 of them to out-damage repair?
—Would it be fun if a single frost breath from wyrm freezes towers for 10 seconds from 1000 range away?
Do UD and NE have better tri-hero combos than am/mk/pala and bm/sh/tc? HU and Orc need better base trading to make up for how weak MK and BM are as heroes compared to dh and dk…?
Or better yet, do HU and Orc units suck and never win up front fights against UD and NE? And that’s why these two races need better base-trading ability?
Why are 2 races allowed to win by default in base trading scenarios? After so many tournaments where raiders or tanks were used to run circles and avoid interactive gameplay until the opponent has 0 buildings, I’m surprised blizzard sees nothing wrong with the current situation over the years.
Discuss.
1 Like
if you put yourself in a base-trade scenario in any type of competetive game, it’s generally a bad decision, and almost always a coin flip. it boils down to the most clever of the two players.
in starcraft 2, i was a zerg player…if i wanted to base trade (for whatever reason) say vs a terran, i’d have to consider that the floating of buildings could be used to their advantage…whereas zerg and protoss were restricted when it comes to hiding buildings. this doesn’t make terran “better at base trading” than the other two. (just using this as an example).
the game isn’t meant to turn into a base trade scenario and therefore isn’t balanced around such…so long story short, either post a replay of your rant so we can judge for ourselves what’s really going on, or just don’t put yourself in these types of situations.
it is not a common strategy to base trade, especially at the pro level. not sure what tournaments you’re looking at but…no. does it happen? yes…is it common, no…is it a type of strategy? no. it’s a horrible coinflip. pros don’t like coin flips, which is why they don’t take risks the same way low-tier ladder players might.
1 Like
I’m referring to the grubby raider games or the various infi/th000/yumiko tank games in the professional tournament setting. I’ll have to go back a few years and dig them up. The primary strategy used was to turtle or run around until raider/tank can win via base trades against NE and UD.
In SC, Terran base floating is an occasional possibility that occurs during the later stages of a few rare games. No Terran starts the game by building his entire strategy around getting to a point where he can finally start floating bases as the finisher move/Main event. That’s not comparable to the situation with tanks and raiders.
WC3 is different.
Orc armies out-siege other races by a massive margin, and it is unclear what is given up in exchange for this strategic advantage now that burrows are no longer vulnerable.
HU has healable, small unit size siege units that can weave in and out of battle and recover from flanking maneuvers in a way that should not be possible for long range siege units. Look at Glaives/demo/wagon.
D-hawks shut down towers in a way and on a scale that seems not just overpowered but completely unconsidered. Imagine one bat rider applying liquid fire from outside the tower’s range. Also it’s an AoE. A BIG AoE. Also it’s 100% attack speed reduction not 80%. What’s going on here?
The problem with base trading is that it is not just a marginal strategy but can be used as a main strategy from the start. And it works. So why not make it work for all races in a balanced fashion? Where are the UD siege units and building upgrades, or the NE versions of lumber mill/farms that can be used to block off moonwells and exp giving ancients?
i mean i play elf, and although i don’t remember the last time i base traded in ladder (i have over 1200 games now, 91% win rate) i can say it hasn’t happened in the past few months…and i’m pretty sure i remember losing one to a guy with a high level tinker he kept using in zepplins…i don’t think his race units had anything to do with it.
anyways, i’m not quire sure what your thread is trying to accomplish…i personally always felt that elf sucked in any base trade scenario…because at the end of the day, my army is mg’s and archers usually…i wouldn’t want to base trade with anyone with an army like that…
that’s the thing - skilled players will not put themselves in a coinflip like a base trade game. like, no, lol, skilled players defend their bases. unless you introduce an item that steals the player’s TP scroll or something?
So from your personal experience MGs (and to an extent the Glaives buffs) have essentially resolved base trading as a problem for NE. This is not consistent from what I see or hear from other NE players, but apparently you never allow opponents to base trade ever. Moon is not able to accomplish this, but you can.
UD then is the only race without siege or building upgrades if NE never suffer from base-trading in 1.30 as you claim.
But I really doubt this year’s tournaments (especially the high prize pool ones) won’t involve base-trades. Most Chinese pros refuse to use it as a strategy recently because they are streamers and cannot afford to lose fan support - which happens when they bade-trade… But for this year’s large prize money pool? We will see.