EPTThe Case Against the Baneling - Page 2
| Blogs > stormfoxSC |
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
| ||
|
Silvertine
United States509 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 29 2012 18:00 Arisen wrote: I'm sorry, but this is just silly. The baneling isn't a problem in the game. I'm sorry if you or other people lose because your micro is shit or w/e, but you should never lose your whole army to banelings if you know what your doing. I can't say this kind of remark was unexpected, even if disappointing when I go out of my way to pre-empt this kind of nonsense: On February 29 2012 16:31 stormfoxSC wrote: If you've read up until now and are thinking to yourself, "This guy is just a whiner that probably has bad marine splitting," bear with me for a little longer. On February 29 2012 18:00 Arisen wrote: ZvZ: I don't hate my mirror, because hardly ever do you lose to banelings. If a guy wants to go offensive banelings, I'm going to go defensive banelings and get a few more drones. You're not going to lose to banelings unless you control very poorly or he transitions from an early pool and you had poor scouting. I wasn't expecting every Zerg to raise their hand, since I'm sure some people (including yourself, it seems) probably like ZvZ, but simply trivializing the early-game ling/bane issue like you have is an absurd counter-argument. When there are plenty of professional Zerg players to quote regarding the abysmal state of ZvZ, on top of the matchup having its notorious reputation, your approach is easier said than done. On February 29 2012 18:00 Arisen wrote: A-move through the army: Ok, how do you amove banelings through an army? What race are we talking about? Protoss should never lose to banelings on the ground, and if you do your forcefields are bad. If it's a terran you're being greedy and sieging too late or keeping everything into a ball and not splitting. You shouldn't lose to this kind of thing if you're a competent player at all. I understand if you're a lower level player it's frustrating when you lose to banelings because you're not fast enough, but the're not a problem to people who know how to play. You must be kidding me. The number of times I've seen players like Liquid`Jinro or oGsForGG (amongst many other Terran streams I watch) losing games on their streams from many baneling-related a-move scenarios is beyond count. Acting like it's a simple matter of competency is beyond ignorant to me, not to mention quite condescending. On February 29 2012 18:00 Arisen wrote: All or nothing - Yeah, it's hard to make banelings connect versus someone who knows what they're doing, but it's nowhere as bad as you're making it out. IF you amove into a siege line from one angle, yeah, you're probably pretty bad and deserve to lose the game. You shouldn't be putting all your eggs into the baneling basket, that's why banelings are used with infestors or mutas/lings/ultras. You're theory crafting scenarios that fallaciously take my lack of specificity too literally. I know of no realistic scenario where a Zerg will have an army comprised of nothing but banelings. Focusing specifically on the utilization of a single unit isn't the same as saying that unit is the only one being used. I don't mind if people want to disagree with the OP, but don't do it by insulting other people's skill at this game and reinforcing your points with grossly incorrect assumptions. You've said nothing here except that either people should never die to anything or they're bad at this game. That's not a valid argument. On February 29 2012 18:00 Arisen wrote: Would I rather have a lurker? Of course, but I don't. If they want to give me a lurker, great, if not the baneling is fine. The baneling works very well in the game, and while it's probably pretty frustrating to low level players, it's a fine unit at higher levels of play. This entire blog was inspired by my frustration at watching banelings essentially ruin professional tournament games, both in favour and against the Zerg player. That I wrote it in a way that people of many different levels of skill can relate to doesn't magically make what I wrote disappear at a pro level. You might notice I made no mention of baneling landmines -- a favourite for lower level players to complain about -- since I don't feel it's a fundamentally broken concept and, in fact, is one of the extremely few situations where banelings are actually entertaining or skillful (i.e. the decision making behind it, baiting armies onto the mines, etc.). | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 29 2012 18:33 Gryffes wrote: One does not simply a-move banelings. You have to right click them behind the terrans retreating bio, or they'll explode on tanks and you'll lose the game 20s later when a stimmed marine ball rapes the expansion behind the fight. Same in ZvZ, you're right clicking into mineral lines and have 3-4 control groups worth of blings so they don't explode on queens after they arrive. tldr you state there is no baneling micro and it's pure a-move, not true at all. You're right that I oversimplified a bit, but at the end of the day it's still only a matter of when you a-move to suicide. Right-clicking past tanks and waiting until after you've passed them to a-move the bio, for example, isn't exactly a big micro move. ZvZ is micro-intensive (hence its "knife fight" reputation), but most of that revolves around avoiding losing all your zerglings in ling/bane battles. Simply moving banelings into mineral lines isn't intensive, sorry to say. | ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
On February 29 2012 19:16 stormfoxSC wrote: I can't say this kind of remark was unexpected, even if disappointing when I go out of my way to pre-empt this kind of nonsense: I wasn't expecting every Zerg to raise their hand, since I'm sure some people (including yourself, it seems) probably like ZvZ, but simply trivializing the early-game ling/bane issue like you have is an absurd counter-argument. When there are plenty of professional Zerg players to quote regarding the abysmal state of ZvZ, on top of the matchup having its notorious reputation, your approach is easier said than done. You must be kidding me. The number of times I've seen players like Liquid`Jinro or oGsForGG (amongst many other Terran streams I watch) losing games on their streams from many baneling-related a-move scenarios is beyond count. Acting like it's a simple matter of competency is beyond ignorant to me, not to mention quite condescending. You're theory crafting scenarios that fallaciously take my lack of specificity too literally. I know of no realistic scenario where a Zerg will have an army comprised of nothing but banelings. Focusing specifically on the utilization of a single unit isn't the same as saying that unit is the only one being used. I don't mind if people want to disagree with the OP, but don't do it by insulting other people's skill at this game and reinforcing your points with grossly incorrect assumptions. You've said nothing here except that either people should never die to anything or they're bad at this game. That's not a valid argument. This entire blog was inspired by my frustration at watching banelings essentially ruin professional tournament games, both in favour and against the Zerg player. That I wrote it in a way that people of many different levels of skill can relate to doesn't magically make what I wrote disappear at a pro level. You might notice I made no mention of baneling landmines -- a favourite for lower level players to complain about -- since I don't feel it's a fundamentally broken concept and, in fact, is one of the extremely few situations where banelings are actually entertaining or skillful (i.e. the decision making behind it, baiting armies onto the mines, etc.). You can't be for real. So for ZvZ you read posts from the beta saying ZvZ is fucking stupid because of ling bane; guess what, they're not a problem anymore. How many games to dyou see banelings end on a high level now? Very few. Aggressive ling/bane play is a high risk/high reward probability where youre counting on someone being greedy. As I've said, it's probably frustrating at lower levels where your multitask or decision making or micro isn't great, but that's just starcraft. Certain things are strong if you dont have the skills to deal with it. For ZvT you say you see jinro or forGG lose to banes. Of course. Because that's how you beat terrans. But those zerg players aren't just making 50 banelings at their natural and moving into their army. They're spreading groups of lings making banes and flanking the army from 4 or 5 sides. Should those players not be punished for moving into a shitty position? No. If you move into a big flank you deserve to lose, weather you're joe blow bronze or IMMVP. I'm sorry that you dont like me attacking your post, but I'm attacking it because it's full of points based around sub optimal play and in general aren't good points. Can banelings kill you? Yes, the same as any other units. Are they a broken unit that ruins games? No. Zerg needs a big splash damage unit early in the game or every terran would lol and make a ton of marines and thow them at you and you'd lose games. You can say that's bad game design or whatever, but it is what it is. 10 banelings can ruin an entire terran game if you made a positioning mistake and while that may feel shitty, so does losing a game because 4 hellions (which cost 0 gas and can be made 2 at a time) run past your queens/spines and kill 20 workers and you lose the game. Does that make the hellion a bad unit? No. It means I made a mistake in how I handled the situation and I deserved to lose. Here's a thought, rather than making a post about why a unit that kills you is dumb, spend the time you would have used writing the post actually trying to get better at the game, that's something a lot of people in this community could/should learn. | ||
|
kranten
Netherlands236 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16032 Posts
On February 29 2012 19:58 kranten wrote: So they think the baneling's role overlaps with the one of the lurker? It does. Can you imagine the two units coexisting in a way that isn't totally overpowered? No? Now try adding in Fungal Growth. As long as the baneling exists the Lurker cannot. the OP at least has that right. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: We've been playing it for 2 years. I don't think it's really that new (but certainly not that old). Also considering the tiny changes in the last balance patch and the figures currently it's pretty damn well balanced. Banelings also have nothing to do with this. It doesn't have anything specifically to do with banelings. It was simply a precursor, to talk about the idea of removing units from the game. You're right that the current design of the game is rather balanced, but you're completely ignoring that there are a number of design issues in WoL, and the inevitable design and balance changes upcoming with two expansion packs on the horizon. On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: If you 1a your banes they all run into a tank or thor inefficiently and you deal fuck all damage. Good job. Really good zergs position their banes so they don't get splatted by 1 tank round and split them up mid fight to engage separate clumps of marines. It's really fucking hard you don't know what you're talking about. Okay, seriously, guys? Is it the case that someone has to pull out one of these and draw out the intricacies of every possible scenario as a form of disclaimer in order to make any kind of generalized point? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b7pmg.jpg) The only difficult thing about sending banelings after a Terran army is accepting the fact that there was nothing you could do to stop a Terran with good micro from making your banelings practically worthless. On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: The nestea vs NaDa video is Nestea punishing Nada for having no tanks and poorly spread thors. If a bane splashes on 3-4 things (even thors) then it lived a good life. Oh yeah, I forgot about that game game. I was thinking more like this when referring to over 100 banelings and a-moving: On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: Referencing the infested Terran is silly because the damn thing was only used like once (some ZvP on that map which had a neutral CC in the middle). The unit may as well have never existed in the first place, it was incredibly difficult to obtain and use effectively. It's an extremely poorly designed aspect of Broodwar, and a comparison to the baneling is laughable. Banelings are useful, banelings are exciting, banelings are balanced. I'm not sure if you noticed, but I've been advocating the removal of the baneling. That would be quite similar to how often we saw the infested Terran. You might also notice I've been saying that the baneling is a poorly designed aspect of SC2. Quite a coincidence, no? If you find banelings useful, exciting, and balanced, I'd like to see a counter-argument with that view-point, and showing why the OP isn't a superior solution. I don't mind alternative arguments, but an actual argument needs to exist here. All you've done is highlight the points that lead me to compare the infested Terran and the baneling in the first place (beyond just their similar function) and declare a one-line opinion that contrasts with mine, but with no reasoning as to why. On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: Plenty of ZvZ's get past the baneling stage, but they more struggle with the basic Rock paper scissors game of 15 hatch > 10pool > 14/14 > 15 hatch (with 6 pool thrown in there too for jollies) and weird things involving speed timings, spines, queens and all sorts of little niggly bits. A good zerg can deal with banes. ling/bane wars in ZvZ are extremely challenging for both players and the better player gets to win them. Isn't this something a Broodwar fan would like? Shit have you seen quality zergs split their drones vs banes? gosu Leenock split You cite different builds but all (except for perhaps the 6 pool, unless the game drags on for some reason) tend to see a ling/bane composition. Different opening BOs don't generally change what spectators end up seeing (ling/bane wars all day erry day, yo), except the outcome gains a rock/paper/scissors feel to it. Ling/bane wars are challenging for both players. So was/is 4-gate vs 4-gate. That doesn't make it good design. Leenock did have a sick split there, but only focusing on that misses the other half of the picture: there wasn't anything DRG could do. I clearly mentioned in my OP the whole finger-crossing aspect to banelings, and that video highlights it perfectly. On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: ... What point is this making? Baneling timings are usually shitty and rely on your opponent being too greedy or just plain awful. They provide a good way for Zerg to punish sloppy opponents and crucially banelings are something zerg has that has a chance of getting through a wall. Do you even play this game? I have to ask what point you're trying to make, here. You took the first half of a two-part point (if the similar section titles weren't obvious; "Never lose a game again..." and "Never lose a game again?...") that talks about the silly boolean nature of the baneling -- as in, do massive damage or do no damage -- and respond to it with a bunch of irrelevant, random things the baneling can do before questioning whether I actually play the game. Which, by the way, is an absurd question, though I know you're only saying it as an insult. Classy. Since that seems to keep coming up, I'll tell you guys my ladder status. I'm Diamond on the NA server, as I've been every season, and my MMR pairs me with high-Diamond and low-Masters players. So, yes, I play the game. On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: God I can't be bothered going through the rest of this. Then why did you bother posting? On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: It's so poorly thought out and the point the op is trying to make is confusing. Banelings are overpowered! Banelings are underpowered! Banelings require no skill to use! SC2 is totally not BW! Considering, by your own admission, that you didn't finish going through the OP, I'm not surprised you're confused. I've used two words relating to balance when discussing the baneling: overpowered and imbalanced. I said "overpowered" when comparing it directly with the BW infested Terran, as in, they took the infested Terran, gave it some major buffs, and added it to Zerg T1. Afterward, I used the word "imbalanced" to both reference my "overpowered" statement, and to foreshadow my later explanation of the baneling's lop-sided nature when it comes to doing damage (massive damage/no damage). Perhaps that's too high-level of writing for TL without immediately accompanying it with a flat explanation, but there you go. Banelings do require some skill to use (ever seen a Bronze player try to utilize banelings?), but the skill ceiling is incredibly low, hurting both lower-level players trying to fight against the banelings and pros trying to utilize them. I thought I was quite clear about that. On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote: Banelings are a great part of the game. They're exciting (he's fucking downplaying this video for fucks sake, this), they create a wondrous tension with an instant explosive payoff and they reward players who have better mechanics (ZvZ) and who can position and control well during fights. We can't remove this unit because it would make Zerg far too weak early game and why would we anyway? I disagree with them being a great part of the game, per my OP. That video you link to is only "exciting" in the sense that usually you want to avoid running banelings into Thors, so seeing a pro deliberately do the opposite is a rare sight (almost as rare as seeing infested Terrans in professional Brood War, wink nudge). Well, that and Tastosis are amping up the excitement with their excellent casting. When you pull that away, though, what you have is a lot of banelings quite literally a-moving into a bunch of Thors. Oh yes, quite exciting, I'm sure. Pulling the "Zerg would be too weak if you remove it" card deliberately ignores the huge section I dedicated about replacing the baneling with something better, as well as some of the responses I made earlier in the comments. When people do something like that, I feel pretty confident that you're not actually here to have a reasonable argument, but rather just want to cherry-pick certain parts to make a condescending post and act smugly superior. On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote:Conversly, banelings increase the skill required for the other player. Explain to me how this has no place in the game. Splitting marines, focusing tank fire, dodging burrowed banes and maintaining map awareness so these little shits don't blow up my whole army. Goddamn sounds challenging, sounds well designed, sounds fun. The baneling isn't the only unit design that can force sick micro. On February 29 2012 18:07 iaguz wrote:Try and convince anyone that a trio of burrowed banes in SC2 aren't as exciting as hold position lurkers in BW. Now this is true. I mention baneling land mines in one of my previous comments, as well. It's one of the extremely few good things that come out of the baneling, but again, isn't anything a unit like the lurker didn't provide. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
In BW early game TvZ, static defense worked totally different. Z would make creep colonies and in case a timing was scouted, would morph them into sunkens right as soon as T moves out. SC2 has spines which take longer to build but can uproot, so banelings fill a similar role in emergency early game defense. They also have similar effects on overall strategy - in BW T can fail their timing attack and still be okay, because it forces them to dump resources that would have otherwise went to mutalisks, the major difference being in BW the limiter to muta play is larva and in SC2 the limiter is gas. If you beeline them, lurkers hit the field earlier than mutas but way too late to deal with something like that. The role that lurkers actually overlap with is the infestor, and the timing infestors hit the field is similar. TvZ flow is starting to become very similar to in BW, where the Z muta harasses while securing expos and banking gas into an lurker/infestor switch. Sometimes the Z goes straight to infestor but sometimes there were periods in BW where the Z would go straight into a lurker contain if they got a good scout of their turret placement (turret placement to defend lurkers is completely different than from mutas). Both lurkers and infestors essentially punish the exact same thing - large chunks of poorly positioned marines, of which the numbers will inevitably increase at the battles approach max. I think banelings and lurkers could co-exist, but lurkers and infestors really couldn't, because the whole thing that made lurkers cool is that T could dodge the spines and work some serious cost-effectiveness miracles. In SC2 if you just dropped lurkers in as-is Fungal+Lurker would be infinitely more bad and would probably force T to go into TvT mech style every single game. It would be cool in HOTS if infestors needed to burrow to cast a fungal that got some further buffs in exchange. I suppose the bigger question is why they don't get rid of the marauder and rejigger the colossus so marines can dodge the beams. As far as it currently stands I think banes are cool, because they are one of the few units that wildly swing in cost effectiveness. But really the only overlap they have with lurkers at all is that they both raze worker lines quickly. SC2 has a serious lack of miracle workers like the psi storm of old and spider mines so I don't why you hate the one unit that can really swing battles so much. | ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
| ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On February 29 2012 20:59 stormfoxSC wrote: i'm not so sure why i wrote you a constructive response anymore, considering your evidence against banelings is two games from early GSL when all zergs except nestea were bad, and your evidence for lurkers is a game from '04 by some kid playing on useast vs. some complete idiot+ Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYxDbA_IgMY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfl8c4ZtGp0 The baneling isn't the only unit design that can force sick micro. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZNdaEM9SfI | ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
You keep harping that banelings either kill everything or someone micros and they do nothing. Perhaps you think that's the case, but it's not. In a case where a micro move (like a drone split) completely nullifies your strategy, you're using a shitty strategy that relies on someone else microing poorly. In the case of banelings versus marine tank, there are situations where you can guarantee a favorable trade, and you need to force those scenarios; don't trivialize all the work pro zerg players put into their play by dismissing it as luck. Terran can't marine split his way out of a well setup flank or marinekingprime would never lose to zergs; just because the players YOU play are basing there baneling use around luck doesn't mean everyone does. Also, you can't link videos of banelings raping armies as proof of your points without also mentioning that thewind was so ridiculously far ahead in his game that he could have done anything to win and Min was way ahead of his opponent as well. I could show you a video of me amoving pure zerglings to kill someone, does that mean that zerglings are designed poorly? No. As another point, saying that lurkers also forced you to micro your marines isn't an argument for banelings being poorly designed. I could use your same points on why the lurker was poorly designed, because with superb micro you could kill them without taking damage. | ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
The problem with your "make banelings and win(?)" paragraphs is that they are fucking retarded and don't explain anything. You can win by making banes! You can lose by making banes! You can say this about literally any unit in the game what the fuck are you trying to say. That you can attack with them and sometimes win and sometimes lose is not a feature exclusive to banelings. Don't you know how all ins work? You're just... wrong. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 29 2012 19:45 Arisen wrote: You can't be for real. I can't be for real? You can't be for real, man. Every single one of your paragraphs contains at least one major thing that I neither stated nor implied. You're making things up in your head and spewing it out as some sort of fact you're trying to pin on me. I'll bold each of these to highlight them, and address them immediately afterward. On February 29 2012 19:45 Arisen wrote: So for ZvZ you read posts from the beta saying ZvZ is fucking stupid because of ling bane; guess what, they're not a problem anymore. How many games to dyou see banelings end on a high level now? Very few. Aggressive ling/bane play is a high risk/high reward probability where youre counting on someone being greedy. As I've said, it's probably frustrating at lower levels where your multitask or decision making or micro isn't great, but that's just starcraft. Certain things are strong if you dont have the skills to deal with it. Bold: What the hell? Since when are late 2011 and 2012 interviews from the beta? As for how many ZvZs end from banelings, that depends on what you mean by the question. If you mean a person GGs prior to any tech beyond baneling, then I'll have to agree there are not many. If you mean a match is essentially decided by banelings, where the player who's way ahead will finish it off quickly after adding some roaches, then I'd say plenty. Granted, I don't generally watch European tournaments, as I focus on GSL with a sprinkle of NA tournaments like IPL TAC, NASTL, and MLG. On February 29 2012 19:45 Arisen wrote: For ZvT you say you see jinro or forGG lose to banes. Of course. Because that's how you beat terrans. But those zerg players aren't just making 50 banelings at their natural and moving into their army. They're spreading groups of lings making banes and flanking the army from 4 or 5 sides. Should those players not be punished for moving into a shitty position? No. If you move into a big flank you deserve to lose, weather you're joe blow bronze or IMMVP. Bold: What the hell? Where did the whole 50 banelings at the natural thing come from? Where was this scenario mentioned before? How do you even make something like that up to refute what I said -- and how do you actually think that refutes my argument? On the note of making things up as you go, why are you describing what you think these Zergs are doing, such as flanks and spreading, when I just straight told you that I've watched guys like Jinro and fOrGG straight lose to a-move zerg compositions that include banelings? A-move, as in, from one angle, no spread, just sent forward. There are other times when they lose to sick flanks too, but I'm not talking about that. My point was that making a condescending post about how bad someone must be if they lose to something like that is rude and untrue. On February 29 2012 19:45 Arisen wrote: I'm sorry that you dont like me attacking your post, but I'm attacking it because it's full of points based around sub optimal play and in general aren't good points. Can banelings kill you? Yes, the same as any other units. Are they a broken unit that ruins games? No. Zerg needs a big splash damage unit early in the game or every terran would lol and make a ton of marines and thow them at you and you'd lose games. You can say that's bad game design or whatever, but it is what it is. 10 banelings can ruin an entire terran game if you made a positioning mistake and while that may feel shitty, so does losing a game because 4 hellions (which cost 0 gas and can be made 2 at a time) run past your queens/spines and kill 20 workers and you lose the game. Does that make the hellion a bad unit? No. It means I made a mistake in how I handled the situation and I deserved to lose. Bold #1: What the hell? My blog was based around my observations of tournament play, particularly tournaments like the GSL and recently MLG Winter Arena. Sub-optimal. I don't think that word means what you think it means. Bold #2: What the hell? Did you not read the second half of my blog, or some of my earlier responses in the comments? Nobody's saying "just remove the baneling and Zerg will be perfectly designed", and the OP makes the case for adding a real zoning unit to SC2 Zerg to both replace the baneling's current role of defending Zerg in the early game, and providing the currently missing ability for Zerg to hold territory. On February 29 2012 19:45 Arisen wrote: Here's a thought, rather than making a post about why a unit that kills you is dumb, spend the time you would have used writing the post actually trying to get better at the game, that's something a lot of people in this community could/should learn. Bold: What the hell? I already told you directly that the frustrations leading me to write this blog stemmed from watching tournament play, and how stupid the baneling is at that professional level. The OP talks about a mix of both tournament and casual misgivings to paint the picture why I think the baneling is bad for competitive SC2 -- AKA, professional play. I'm not sure how I can make that more obvious. At this point it feels like you're stuck in your own fantasy world where you're reading this blog like it's a battle.net thread made by some gold league Terran, talking about how the baneling is OP because he hasn't learned how to marine split yet. I really don't know how to respond to that. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
If only Blizzard employed people to specifically work on game balance. Oh they do. But this guy knows better obviously. Banelings are specifically designed to do damage against early big balls of T & P ranged units, which cost effieciently destroy zerglings and roaches. Banelings are the deterrent for T to not make only marines every goddamn game. | ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 29 2012 21:11 Zanno wrote: I'm afraid your way off the mark here for two reasons: In BW early game TvZ, static defense worked totally different. Z would make creep colonies and in case a timing was scouted, would morph them into sunkens right as soon as T moves out. SC2 has spines which take longer to build but can uproot, so banelings fill a similar role in emergency early game defense. They also have similar effects on overall strategy - in BW T can fail their timing attack and still be okay, because it forces them to dump resources that would have otherwise went to mutalisks, the major difference being in BW the limiter to muta play is larva and in SC2 the limiter is gas. If you beeline them, lurkers hit the field earlier than mutas but way too late to deal with something like that. I agree with this based on the assumption that the zoning unit I suggest Zerg receives is the lurker. However, I pointed out that I don't think simply adding the lurker back in is what should be done. One thing that I perhaps didn't touch on well enough is that Zerg would have to undergo some redesign for balance purposes -- but that's okay since it's happening anyway in Heart of the Swarm, with the addition of new units and abilities. Blizzard could do something like directly replace the baneling with some T1 unit that's effective against bio and morphs into a strong zoning unit at T2, or something else entirely. I don't have "the" answer for that. On February 29 2012 21:11 Zanno wrote:The role that lurkers actually overlap with is the infestor, and the timing infestors hit the field is similar. TvZ flow is starting to become very similar to in BW, where the Z muta harasses while securing expos and banking gas into an lurker/infestor switch. Sometimes the Z goes straight to infestor but sometimes there were periods in BW where the Z would go straight into a lurker contain if they got a good scout of their turret placement (turret placement to defend lurkers is completely different than from mutas). Both lurkers and infestors essentially punish the exact same thing - large chunks of poorly positioned marines, of which the numbers will inevitably increase at the battles approach max. I actually see the infestor as more of a love child between the BW queen and the defiler. It's a spell caster, not a positional unit, even though fungal growth can stem an oncoming force temporarily. On February 29 2012 21:11 Zanno wrote: I think banelings and lurkers could co-exist, but lurkers and infestors really couldn't, because the whole thing that made lurkers cool is that T could dodge the spines and work some serious cost-effectiveness miracles. In SC2 if you just dropped lurkers in as-is Fungal+Lurker would be infinitely more bad and would probably force T to go into TvT mech style every single game. It would be cool in HOTS if infestors needed to burrow to cast a fungal that got some further buffs in exchange. I suppose the bigger question is why they don't get rid of the marauder and rejigger the colossus so marines can dodge the beams. That's an interesting perspective. I feel that fungal + baneling is worse than fungal + lurker, though like I said, I don't think the lurker is the answer for SC2 Zerg's zoning. On February 29 2012 21:11 Zanno wrote: As far as it currently stands I think banes are cool, because they are one of the few units that wildly swing in cost effectiveness. But really the only overlap they have with lurkers at all is that they both raze worker lines quickly. SC2 has a serious lack of miracle workers like the psi storm of old and spider mines so I don't why you hate the one unit that can really swing battles so much. That's fair. I suppose the best I can break it down is like this:
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 29 2012 21:27 Zanno wrote: i'm not so sure why i wrote you a constructive response anymore, considering your evidence against banelings is two games from early GSL when all zergs except nestea were bad, and your evidence for lurkers is a game from '04 by some kid playing on useast vs. some complete idiot Sorry, I grabbed fast examples because there are a lot of comments to respond to, and Brood War is an old game, man. Here's something of NaDa attacking a Zerg expo while avoiding the lurker spines: | ||
|
Kasha_Not_Kesha
United States71 Posts
Banelings are a necessary component of the ZvT and ZvZ matchups The issue is relatively simple: If you remove Banelings, large, early bio pushes in ZvT become insanely strong. Honestly, I'm not sure how one would even hold a fast bio push (hitting at ~6:00) sans banes. Unless you go for hyper fast upgrades and throw down a ton of spines, which Zerg can't honestly afford to do that early on without getting horribly behind, I actually don't think it's possible. Terran can just produce units constantly, mass up a bio ball and a-move into the Zerg's base. Is that honestly a better outcome? You keep throwing out all of these rebuttals claiming that "that's a weak counter-argument", but most of your responses are(and in fact, your core argument is) about how we need to get rid of the Baneling because it's imba/boring. If you're going to make either claim (imba and/or boring) you do kind of need to provide a reasonable alternative so that the game doesn't become imba/boring against the Zerg's favor. So what unit do you propose is introduced to replace the Baneling in order to make ZvT something more interesting than "Oh. He's sending bio at me before I could conceivably have Infestors or any unit that could reasonably deal with it at this point in time. GG"? What unit do you propose is introduced to replace the Baneling in order to make ZvZ something more interesting than "Oh. Oh man guys. Zerglings. Zerglings are fighting! Lot's of them! Man those Zerglings are fighting."? As much as I hate actually taking part in ling/bling wars, I much prefer it to the world where ZvZ is 6 minutes of Zerglings fighting while both players try to get upgrades to turn the battle in their favor. You can't, in all honesty, tell me that ling/bling is to be lost for this. And how will this supposed unit alter the ZvP match-up? Remember, it'll have to be a tier 1.5 unit like the Baneling, but it can't be the Baneling because the Baneling is imbalanced and leads to stagnant games. In the OP you talk about revamping the swarm host into a fitting zoning unit; that won't really cut it. Swarm host is Lair tech level, and AFAIK it requires burrow. Not exactly a great solution to the ZvT/ZvZ issues above. This is the difficulty involved in arguing "Banelings need to be removed/replaced". You need something that can perform the exact same job, at the exact same time, for roughly the same cost, without breaking any of the match-ups. I realize you've already touched on this topic extensively in your earlier responses, but you don't seem to have any interest in explaining what Banelings should be replaced with. Without that, I really can't justify agreeing with you on any of your points, because I just don't see how you can fill the Baneling's role in a way that doesn't break other matchups. Positional units don't fit with the Zerg playstyle Zerg is all about fast, cheap, throwaway units. Zerglings are the very definition of "what a Zerg unit should be". Super fast, great for in-your-face aggression and great for defense if need be. Roaches, commonly touted as the Zerg "tank", are pretty damn squishy compared to other "tanky" units, but the key is they can be (and nearly always are) massed to draw fire for higher damage, but lower health Zerg units. Sure, Roaches have their regen upgrade, but that really doesn't see enough use to really call Roaches a hard-to-kill unit. They're a disposable damage soaking line. Banelings, by their very nature (morphing from the quintessential Zerg unit, the Zergling) are very much a "Zerg" unit. Fast, disposable, and easily mass produced. Positional units, in any form, are counter to these core Zerg "philosophies" if you will. Positional units aren't disposable; they're expensive, slow, and they really aren't supposed to move all that much, except to change where they're going to stand still and defend. They require teching and time and resources, none of which meshes well with the other Zerg units. To be clear; you can have slower, more expensive, and less disposable units in the Zerg arsenal. That's kind of self evident just by looking at Hydras, Infestors, and Brood-lords. These are units that are balanced out for their slowness or generally non-disposable nature by being really fucking strong, and in general, you don't see these units until late in the game, when Zerg's overall focus shifts from the early game concerns (taking lot's of bases and abusing the mobile units available to an early game Zerg to prevent the player's opponent from taking bases) into the late game concern of "how do I kill this deathball?". You're more or less asking for something that is completely counter to the Zerg's ideal approach to the early and mid game scenarios. Zerg shouldn't be turtling or trying to defend positions. That's the Terran philosophy. Zerg wants to be aggressive; positional units on face value are not conducive to this playstyle. Edit: the OP makes the case for adding a real zoning unit to SC2 Zerg to both replace the baneling's current role of defending Zerg in the early game, and providing the currently missing ability for Zerg to hold territory. See, the role of Banelings in defending Zerg in the early game is more or less to defend against early pushes with a lot of bio units (or Zerglings). After that, the Banelings are there to give the Zerg some kind of edge to allow for aggression. If I send a mass of lings to attack a Terran player's third, they'll get torn apart by nothing but Marines. At this point, Terran controls the map, simply because he has Marines. The Zerg no longer has any fast units to take advantage of the slowness of Mech, because all of the units that *could* do this (Speedling/Mutalisk) are very much countered by stimmed Marines with some Medevacs. The idea that Zerg needs to "hold territory" in what is implied to be a defensive manner is beyond false. Zerg as a race "holds territory" by containing the player's opponent with heavy aggression. We don't defend by setting up a perimeter and holding the line, we defend by killing drops, having map awareness, and exploiting the speed of our units to force a base race or to force our opponent to pull back his forces to defend against our attack. "Holding territory" is a core component of Terran play in SC II, but it's not even close to a style that most competent Zergs would be willing to adopt. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On February 29 2012 21:31 Arisen wrote: Lol. "Too high level writing" for TL. No, you see, people are pointing out that your assertions are fucking stupid and you think that because they're disagreeing they can't possibly comprehend your writing because you try to make yourself sound more intelligent by using large words What the hell? Why would you extrapolate my (admittedly) facetious comment regarding my dual use of "imbalanced" to the entirety of my post, as well as my use of "large words"? Are you legitimately bored and just want to mess with someone on their blog, or something? I get disagreeing. Zanno was disagreeing, though I think he misunderstood those quick video examples to mean more than I meant them to. They were just supposed to be examples of the concept, not hard evidence. Anyway, what I don't get is you. Simple disagreeing is fair and expected, but you tack on so much irrelevant and nonsensical hostility for the sake of it, to the point where half the time your posts don't actually address the blog or anything said therein. On February 29 2012 21:31 Arisen wrote: You keep harping that banelings either kill everything or someone micros and they do nothing. Perhaps you think that's the case, but it's not. In a case where a micro move (like a drone split) completely nullifies your strategy, you're using a shitty strategy that relies on someone else microing poorly. In the case of banelings versus marine tank, there are situations where you can guarantee a favorable trade, and you need to force those scenarios; don't trivialize all the work pro zerg players put into their play by dismissing it as luck. Terran can't marine split his way out of a well setup flank or marinekingprime would never lose to zergs; just because the players YOU play are basing there baneling use around luck doesn't mean everyone does. Bold #1: What the hell? Wait a second. That was iaguz that posted those examples of things like drone splitting vs. banelings, and hyped them up as being supposedly amazing. I said they were stupid, because it's up to the defender to react or not, while the baneling user just crosses his fingers and hopes for the best. I'll accept your argument that those kinds of things amount to shitty strategy, but the fact is banelings are often used in professional games to deal damage to mineral lines, either by running them in like that, through baneling drops (this one's more rare, naturally), etc. Bold #2: What the hell? How many times do I have to tell you that I'm talking about pro matches, not ladder? Not only that, but no where did I deny that professional Zergs do the best they can to ensure their banelings connect; what the hell else would they do? It's still a fact that the Zerg has to get a bit lucky and hope their opponent walks into their trap, otherwise it's a coin game whether the banelings do the damage they need to. If the trap does get sprung, though, then yeah, their hard work pays off. On February 29 2012 21:31 Arisen wrote: Also, you can't link videos of banelings raping armies as proof of your points without also mentioning that thewind was so ridiculously far ahead in his game that he could have done anything to win and Min was way ahead of his opponent as well. I could show you a video of me amoving pure zerglings to kill someone, does that mean that zerglings are designed poorly? No. I was going to "what the hell?" this one too, but I realized my explanation about those videos is earlier in this post. Those videos aren't "proof", because they're too old to prove anything. There's no "proof" to even be had; what exactly is trying to be proven with those? An exaggeration I made about pros making a lot of banelings, and how it's silly? You can't "prove" an exaggeration, since the exaggeration makes the point through overstatement, which is inherently false when taken literally. The core idea was about pros utilizing lots of banelings as a crutch to gain advantages and win games with, IMHO, relatively less skill -- not by their own choice, but by its very design lowering the skill ceiling for Zerg. I think we're already clear you disagree with that point, though. On February 29 2012 21:31 Arisen wrote: As another point, saying that lurkers also forced you to micro your marines isn't an argument for banelings being poorly designed. I could use your same points on why the lurker was poorly designed, because with superb micro you could kill them without taking damage. Oh! There's finally a good point. My only argument there is that I really don't think you can compare marine splitting vs. banelings with the back-and-forth positioning dance between the lurker and marine/medic. | ||
| ||
