The Terran OP Argument

Personally I think everything is very well balanced. Yes some units are better than others, but it's a game, find something to counter it, isn't this the whole point?
Though I gotta say, I think the Marauders' move speed should be slowed down a bit. They are big round units, they shouldn't move at teh same speed as marines and other units. Yes I know this would destroy the kiting of of zealots and such, and I know this takes some skill to do, but there is no way a marauder should run at the same speed as a zealot.

 

Thread creator? which league and rank are you? link please.

I play Zerg and whenever i play against a diamond terran, it's hell. It's way too difficult to scout them and they can scout you pretty much at will.

A terran with decent micro and a good reaper build will simply stop you from getting an expansion and an economic league. If you try to "counter" with roaches for what it's worth, you'll sacrifice your economy and get owned later in the game. If you get spine crawlers... they're pretty much worthless as soon as terran has 6 reapers.

 

I just spent 30 minutes battling a terran...Nonetheless, I gave up. I was constantly harrassing his stuff. Finally he had planetary fortresses with detectors out of the ***. Which makes my air obsolete, and my dark templars done. He mass viking behind that knowing I can't go air to attack. I'm going to attach the replay. It's so annoying how OP they are. 3 vikings knocked out 4 of my void rays in no time.

 

i like toss and terran better than zerg
its just not right hearing those splattering exploding organic material noises all game long every time you select your units
as for terran i think battleships have lost its place to thors, seriously. battlecruisers can sponge up damage but dont quite do as much damage themselves compared to its ground hugging cousin the thor. 2-3 thors with marine/maurader composition has been on my nerves since i first played multiplayer sc2 while battlecruisers really need to come in double digits to do real damage thus usually games end before mass bc.
and i think reapers are annoying. they are kinda like that fly that buggs you for the better part of the hour but continuously evades being swatted. but fun if your contoling them

 

That depends if you or your opponent is favoured/teams even when you lose/win. By what you are describing, I guess you either win against even opponents but with bonus points since you started playing league later, or you lose against even but win against favoured, which would surprise me a bit.

 

I'm questioning the value of those numbers.

Won't most people's win/loss percentages approach an equilibrium (with the extremes on either end of the ladder balancing each other) as they settle into where they 'belong' in rankings? So I'm not sure I see the value in looking at players' average win/loss ratios and I would expect it to be a number close to the 50th percentile.

The fact there are what appears to be significantly less (would actually need more information to determine if its significant, but the gap seems wide enough to conclude it without statistical analysis) people playing Zerg in all brackets is interesting, but it doesn't tell us why.

It could be less people like to play zerg for gameplay reasons.

But it could just as well be that less people play zerg because it is a harder/weaker race to play. The fact people aren't forced to play random (with statistics gathered for each of their games as whatever race) or randomly locked into races long enough to complete a study makes those statistics very difficult to interpret meaningfully.

 

At least in my platinum division, most people have much more wins than losses. Me on the other hand lose one game after another since moving up and my enemies don't get any easier to beat. I don't know what the hell they're doing to calculate this.

 

I'm in diamond as terran - I find the easiest race to play against is terran, then protoss, then zerg. A good zerg player just picks you apart across the entire map - you can't expand, you can't move out of your base, you lose heaps of buildings and economy and you can't scout them apart from scans. As soon as they get muta's, I might as well GG like, 90% of the time.

 

I don't think it's something that should be adressed. I don't think any of us play a race because it's more powerful than others.
I find it awsome to play a race of aliens with energy swords and energy beam weapons so I picked protoss. My only 2 RL mates that play starcraft like the concept of space marines in heavy suits of armor and robots with cannons in their hand slots so they play terran. All 3 of us think that zerg is an awesome race, mechanics-wise, but find it too slimy to our liking. If zerg changed and were not slimy and disgusting then the enemies we'd have to face as either terran(fending off a disgusting enemy that wants to kill you) or protoss(hunting down the same disgusting enemy that wants to kill other civilizations) would change and the game would lose it's touch. A friend of mine who used to play broodwar(he's in the army now and got not sc2 yet) was playing zerg because he's got a more brutal mentality than myself and found it awsome to slaughter marines with huge kaizer blades or drench them in acid(as was the hydralisk animation back then despite the name).

Zerg has been the "bad and disgusting" guy from start and there's an inherent dislike to this by people in general. The marjority of people in a D&D campaign will pick either the good-aligned party or the neutral-aligned one. It's a minority that would pick the evil necromancer or the likes of him, just because people like to familiarise themselves with those kinds of things more. D&D would suck if there were no evil necromancers that summon rotting zombies though.

What I want to say is: If there are balance issues, then they need to be adressed, yes, but no change needs to be done just to change the race distribution among players.

Agree with that. Numbers are useful but interpreting them correctly is no easy job.
In any bracket the closer you get to the middle of it the closer you get to a 50% win ratio and the farther you get from it the farther you get from 50% win ratio but never too far since that would pump up your volatility which would drastically change your MMR and move you up or down divisions faster.

The ladder system works in such a way by design so the win ratio won't tell us much. What numbers would be more interresting would be which % of the total population of each race belongs to which division. That would give a little more info on which races are easier or harder to play etc, but still it wouldn't suffice either.

As for zerg, in the EG master's cup semi-finals 50% of the composition(2/4 players) were zerg and the finals were PvZ won by the zerg and since we've seen zerg take quite a few titles recently I don't think that zerg is a weak race at all.


Keep in mind that there's also the strategies that are lying around. SC:BW still has new strats being formulated to counter older ones even after 11 years of being played at a competitive level. SC2 is only a few months old. Things that seem OP now might seem weak a year from now even if no patch comes to play in the meantime. You just need someone to try 1 good idea against said thing, then more people will try it, refine it and it'll become a counter.

For the time being the most played race is protoss. Does that make the race more powerful than the others? No. More cool in the minds of the players that play it? Perhaps. Protos on the other hand have won less global tournaments/invitationals etc than zerg or terran. Does that make them weak? Again no.

The whole game is evolving constantly, I don't think we can call this or the other race storng or weak.

 

I don't think T are OP, But I would like to see some slight nerfs.

Marine fire rate increased by 5-10% (Make them fire slower), (Or base damage decreased by one), Maruader move speed increased by 10-15%. (Make the maruader slower, it should not have the same speed as a marine)

 

Terran have seen enough nerfs as they are currently, either of those 2 would hurt them a lot. Marine damage is fine as it is(it's less damage/per/second than that of an unupgraded zergling(a single zergling) and about half that of a zealot) plus marines die way too easily. And marauders moving slower than marines would split the terran army in half.

 

Man... I thank you for linking that replay. It's always funny to see cheesers get owned and then starting to cry.

 

Perhaps nothing done to the marine, but the maruader must be made slower if for no other reason than its logical.

The maruder is bigger and way heavier than the marine, it should not go the same speed.
Stalker goes faster than the zealot because it has four legs, that makes sense, but the maruder going same speed as the marine does not..

break up the army? OH hey! you mean LIKE HOW stalkers are faster than zealots or how zerglings are faster than most anythign zerg HAS! LIKE THAT!!

 

There is no good argument that Terran is OP. A Zerg won the GSL, and if you watch any high level PvT replay you'll see that Protoss can be neck-to-neck with the Terran economy and have an army efficient enough to win battles with.

 

You really didn't read what I wrote.

All I want is the maruader to be slowed, (By only 10% would be fine) because its not logical for a unit twice a big and probably at LEAST twice as heavy to move just as fast as the marine.

that is all.

 

Your logic is flawed. Just because something is big doesn't mean that it's slow. It can just as easily use that extra space to fit in a stronger engine. Just look at our present day tanks; really heavy, but very fast.

 

My logic is flawed?

The maruader has legs buddy, not an engine..

Nice try though.

 

no it has an engine its in the suit of armor that make him huge and weighing to much to physically stand, without aid from the biomechnics that make him go at the same speed as marines. marauders are meant to be mobile, mech is meant to be slow changing the speed of marauders would change terran game play and since its fine as it is right now that would suck. if you cant beat marauders stop building roaches and stalkers.

 

1. I have no problem beating T
2. Still not a good enough reason for them to be the exact same speed as a marine.
3. The facts of your arguement mean it should be faster than the marine. (which is facepalmish at best)

whatever the case may be, i won't post further since either no one cares or doesn't get it.

 

That's because the 3 armies work in a different way.
Zealots get charge and cover that speed loss, plus stalkers are good for their maneuvrability and ability to tank damage while attacking air so they need to be faster to absorb some hits so your colossi can attack from range or zealots(who are a dps unit) get in range with charge and while doing so they can be microed to stay alive and still do damage.

Zerglings are fast because every zergling death reduces the total damage the group can do so they need to be fast to surround to be effective. And zerglings work for zerg like force fields do for protoss. Run them by, make a surround and make quick work of an enemy army between ling damage and roaches/hydras whatever you like to have in your composition.


Marines and Marauders are working perfectly well together and act as a team by themselves having both a tanky heavy unit that can take damage kill armored targets and a good dps unit that's squishy but deals good damage to both ground and air. And that army needs to be mobile because siege tanks are immobile and you need small groups of mobile army to lure enemy forces in the tank radious and control where to fight your fights and MM do that thing great.

It's just different ways the armies work.


As for marauders having legs to move: The suit must weigh a few tones, it's not muscle that's moving that thing but robotics. Just watch the intro video of Tychus getting into the marine suit. So yeah, just put in there a better engine and you got your speed as needed.
And the stalker moving faster than the zealot because it has "more" legs is quite stupid an argument, sorry, but I had to add that. The legs are there for balance and not speed. Man used to walk on 4 before evolving to what we are today but standing on 2 didn't reduce our speed.

Edit: Ste if you add a filosophical reason behind the marauder speed argument I'll vote you for AtlasMeCH n2, really >.<