|
...Mech is ever going to be viable without throwing Bio out the window, and if Terran is ever going to be able to compete with the other two races' early games.
Static defenses in this game suck for Terran, while Zerg has the cheapest and most easily mass produced static defenses, and one of the best defensive units in the game, the Queen. Protoss is in the middle, with strong defensive units and a moderately expensive cannon that is usable in two out of three match ups.
This, along with larvae allowing Zerg to build both drones and units from the same structure while Terran and Protoss have to build more expensive production facilities, allows Zerg to be very defensive for most of the game, no matter what the opponent is doing.
On the Terran and Protoss' side, they both have more rigid tech paths as well as a slower growing economy, however they have much more cost effective units, when they're used well. This forces aggression from these two races in every match up, while trying to sit back and build economy to four bases before doing anything is suicide.
This is because SC2 is an arms race for the strongest units as quickly as possible without dying. Large amounts of Ghost/Viking/Medivac/Marauder are Terran's strongest composition in TvP, but Protoss usually manages to kill the Terran with a deathball of Archon/Templar/Colossi before then because the aforementioned Terran composition costs so damn much. Hence the large amount of complaints about late game TvP.
Also, with Protoss' warp gate and Zerg's high production rate along with Queens and the new Mothership Core, it's impossible to do any effective all-in's before at minimum a fully operational 2-base economy comes into play for Terran at the professional level. This causes Terran to be behind in the arms race from minute one, and focus on doing all-in's or similar plays in the mid game intended to cripple the Protoss or Zerg.
Terran isn't weaker; Terran just can't compete in the arms race the same way Zerg and Protoss can.
Why does all this matter? Well, I'm getting to that.
There have been a lot of complaints about Mech play in SC2 being weak, notably in TvP. Obviously, the main problem is that the Tank sucks. We all know that. The question is: Why?
I highly recommend reading this thread if you don't know exactly what Mech is, and if you do, read it anyway: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325
The answer is that Blizzard is trying to balance the game on too many different maps.
It's more in depth than that, but bear with me here.
Let's look at a couple of maps in the map pool. Korhal Sky Island, Whirlwind, and Neo Planet S.
Korhal: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/6/67/Korhal_Flating_Island.jpg/600px-Korhal_Flating_Island.jpg
Whirlwind: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/5/59/Whirlwind.jpg/600px-Whirlwind.jpg
Neo Planet S: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/3/3c/NeoPlanetS.jpg/400px-NeoPlanetS.jpg
On all of these maps, I could only imagine going Mech successfully on Korhal outside of TvT due to the large amount of choke points and a much more easily held main and natural expansion, and could only imagine going Bio on Whirlwind in TvT. For Mech, Whirlwind and Neo Planet S are too open and the bases are too spread out to defend against the myriad of timings and harassment the other player can throw at you.
This is just my opinion on the specifics. I'm sure that people have their own opinions about Neo Planet S, Korhal, etc. But in general, it's easy to see that the map pool is too varied for it's own good.
This is a problem because in this sort of situation, Terran players must learn two completely different styles of play in order to be able to compete at the professional level. Being able to use both Mech and Bio is always an advantage, but it being required is terrible.
Compare this to WoL: Both Mech and Bio were both playable in TvT and TvZ, in no small part due to the map pool. Most maps played similarly, but not so similarly as to make two maps play almost exactly the same, and for the most part the game was better for it.
The reason Tanks cannot be effectively balanced on both big and small maps is because if they were buffed to be good on big maps, they would be too strong on small maps, and vice versa. Due to their nature of being strong when sieged up and weak when not, it's just impossible to balance them with such a map pool.
As such, they can't push effectively on big maps to punish greedy players trying to get ahead in the arms race for a large expensive army.
This is also true to a lesser extent for Terran all-in's against Zerg and Protoss. Remember steppes of war and xel'naga caverns when Terran 1-base all-in's were OP? Not anymore.
Blizzard's band-aid for this to make Mech able to push early on is the Hellbat. High HP, low cost, short range, high damage, as opposed to the low HP, high cost, long range, mediocre damage of the Siege Tank. The problem is that they synergise too well, and so Mech is now a deathball whenever we do see it in play.
And not only that, but Blizzard actually stated that they think if they buff the Tank, it will make players turtle even more.
Conclusion/TL;DR:
SC2 is an arms race, which Mech cannot compete in due to being underpowered vs Protoss and Zerg. If however Mech is buffed to be able to compete on all the current maps vs Zerg and Protoss, it would be OP vs Bio on most maps.
As such, I highly recommend:
1) Standardization of maps. Pick big OR small and work from there.
2) Obviously, buff Siege Tanks, and nerf Hellbats. Hellbats are a crutch to get Mech competing in the arms race via high cost-effectiveness, but as a side effect they cause huge amounts of deathball play, and should be nerfed.
3) Zerg and Protoss need changes. They probably won't come until LotV, and I'm fine with that, but their early game needs to be nerfed, and their mid and late game buffed/changed.
Note: This is TL, so I'm making a note here: I could be wrong.
 
|
On July 17 2013 15:51 Dark.EX wrote:
3) Zerg and Protoss need changes. They probably won't come until LotV, and I'm fine with that, but their early game needs to be nerfed, and their mid and late game buffed/changed.
I think there's more than a little bit of bias here.
|
On July 17 2013 16:45 Antylamon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 15:51 Dark.EX wrote:
3) Zerg and Protoss need changes. They probably won't come until LotV, and I'm fine with that, but their early game needs to be nerfed, and their mid and late game buffed/changed. I think there's more than a little bit of bias here.
I'm speaking mostly from a P/T perspective. So yes there is some bias, but honestly Protoss is really rigid early game, and I would welcome a change from that. It's very black-and-white whether Protoss actually holds early game aggression or not in most circumstances; I would welcome a little bit of grey in the mix. Even if it's just a little.
|
Static defenses in this game suck for Terran,
Missile turrets, bunkers, planetary fortresses, widow mines, and siege tanks all suck?
while Zerg has the cheapest and most easily mass produced static defenses, and one of the best defensive units in the game, the Queen.
To build spine crawlers in sufficient numbers to stop marauders or roaches or sentry-heavy aggression zerg has to use 4-6 drones plus the minerals which hurts income and thus unit numbers.
Queen is a gud unit yes
Protoss is in the middle, with strong defensive units and a moderately expensive cannon that is usable in two out of three match ups.
And the Nexus cannon... Protoss and terran have strong static defenses Zerg defense is units. And creep. Even the swarm host is a static-style unit like the siege tank. Zerg direct-damage static defense (spines, spores) is a lot weaker than Nexus cannon or a full bunker or widow mines. Yes outside of turrets and planetary terran static defense is unit-based but those units are stronger than zerg static defense and making them doesn't limit your future economy.
Only in ZvZ with spores against mutalisks and having spores to kill medivacs on small terran drops is zerg static defense truly strong. Unless you're lategame and build the great wall of spines.
This, along with larvae allowing Zerg to build both drones and units from the same structure while Terran and Protoss have to build more expensive production facilities, allows Zerg to be very defensive for most of the game, no matter what the opponent is doing.
Unless all-inning zerg has to play somewhat defensive zerg can't sacrifice economy for army as effectively early game. Larvae are a limiting factor early game until zerg has enough economy and hatcheries / queens to support rebuilding a lost army.
On the Terran and Protoss' side, they both have more rigid tech paths as well as a slower growing economy, however they have much more cost effective units, when they're used well. This forces aggression from these two races in every match up, while trying to sit back and build economy to four bases before doing anything is suicide.
I don't think the 'tech path' of any race is rigid. Protoss and terran both have the ability to counter the power of larva inject. Mules and chrono boost, warp-in, reactors.
It just sounds like you want the BW tank back and the game is imba against terran because the BW tank is gone, the BW tank was effective in BW because maps were generally more choke-heavy and broken up than in SC2. Plus, pathing. Changing SC2 maps to make the SC2 siege tank anywhere near as effective as the BW siege tank would break the game. It would hugely change and imbalance ZvP as well as TvP and TvZ.
|
Missile turrets, bunkers, planetary fortresses, widow mines, and siege tanks all suck?
To a certain extent, yes. Aside from planetary fortresses and missile turrets, there aren't any good static defenses that are good at defending relatively out-of-the-way bases.
Vipers tend to make static defenses irrelevant with blinding cloud as well.
Siege Tanks aren't that great either. (infamous protoss deathball a-move winning against a dozen + Tanks behind an engineering bay wall or otherwise)
To build spine crawlers in sufficient numbers to stop marauders or roaches or sentry-heavy aggression zerg has to use 4-6 drones plus the minerals which hurts income and thus unit numbers.
Queen is a gud unit yes I suppose I was quite vague. But, 4-6 drones plus minerals isn't that much as opposed to a 1-base all-in. 2 base all-in's are fine for the most part imo, and you can't really incorporate Marauders into a 1-base all-in without having so few units that you can't deal with a large number of Speedlings.
And the Nexus cannon... Protoss and terran have strong static defenses Zerg defense is units. And creep. Even the swarm host is a static-style unit like the siege tank. Zerg direct-damage static defense (spines, spores) is a lot weaker than Nexus cannon or a full bunker or widow mines. Yes outside of turrets and planetary terran static defense is unit-based but those units are stronger than zerg static defense and making them doesn't limit your future economy.
Only in ZvZ with spores against mutalisks and having spores to kill medivacs on small terran drops is zerg static defense truly strong. Unless you're lategame and build the great wall of spines. The main difference is that a bunker requires units, and as such, if you're going Mech you have to choose if you want to be defensive (since Tank based armies can't attack the enemy very easily) or if you want to be aggressive with Hellions, Banshees, drops, or etc.
You can't effectively do both, not very easily anyway.
The Mothership Core can be used offensively as well, and you always get it. It's a mistake not to get one, so it's just shy of impossible to win with an early push because the Protoss is being greedy at the professional level.
Unless all-inning zerg has to play somewhat defensive zerg can't sacrifice economy for army as effectively early game. Larvae are a limiting factor early game until zerg has enough economy and hatcheries / queens to support rebuilding a lost army. IMO there's a difference between a bust, a timing, and an all-in with Zerg. I've seen all three in the GSL, so while this has some merit, I ultimately disagree.
I don't think the 'tech path' of any race is rigid. Protoss and terran both have the ability to counter the power of larva inject. Mules and chrono boost, warp-in, reactors.
It just sounds like you want the BW tank back and the game is imba against terran because the BW tank is gone, the BW tank was effective in BW because maps were generally more choke-heavy and broken up than in SC2. Plus, pathing. Changing SC2 maps to make the SC2 siege tank anywhere near as effective as the BW siege tank would break the game. It would hugely change and imbalance ZvP as well as TvP and TvZ. IMO that depends on how you chance the maps, and how you change the Siege Tank.
In my eyes, Mech has always been a very short distance from becoming viable- the only problem was that it's all uphill and can only go in one direction., (metaphor for not being able to be viable on both large and small maps)
Let me make myself clear: I believe that the game is 100% balanced, but the design is just off. Hence why I made this blog.
I know that MULEs etc can 'counter' injects, it's just that it limits Terran to one composition. Terran has a myriad of early game openers in every match up, but they all go towards one composition per match up.
|
Compare this to WoL: Both Mech and Bio were both playable in TvT and TvZ, in no small part due to the map pool. Most maps played similarly, but not so similarly as to make two maps play almost exactly the same, and for the most part the game was better for it.
I can completely agree with this. However, and speaking from a spectator's point, these similar style maps made for boring matches. I say this because if all of the maps had similar styles, then players would just have to learn for one style of play. For example, in TvZ in WoL it didn't really matter what map, the zerg would just work towards infestor BL and end the game.
In HOTS i like the different map styles just because it would allow for different strategies on both sides. I know you are speaking specifically for mech, but i would also like to see different styles of play in all matchups. I apologize if im saying something completely incorrect or if i misunderstand your points. all in all great points!!!
|
On July 17 2013 19:11 lynchkin wrote:Show nested quote +Compare this to WoL: Both Mech and Bio were both playable in TvT and TvZ, in no small part due to the map pool. Most maps played similarly, but not so similarly as to make two maps play almost exactly the same, and for the most part the game was better for it. I can completely agree with this. However, and speaking from a spectator's point, these similar style maps made for boring matches. I say this because if all of the maps had similar styles, then players would just have to learn for one style of play. For example, in TvZ in WoL it didn't really matter what map, the zerg would just work towards infestor BL and end the game. In HOTS i like the different map styles just because it would allow for different strategies on both sides. I know you are speaking specifically for mech, but i would also like to see different styles of play in all matchups. I apologize if im saying something completely incorrect or if i misunderstand your points. all in all great points!!!
That's alright, you do raise a valid concern. Personally I think that the game is designed well enough that more than one strategy per race can be viable on each map, even if they're all somewhat similar, and that way it would be more interesting for spectators since we wouldn't have one strategy per map with a super-varied map pool.
If you still disagree, we can agree to disagree. 
|
On July 17 2013 17:57 Dark.EX wrote:Show nested quote +Missile turrets, bunkers, planetary fortresses, widow mines, and siege tanks all suck?
To a certain extent, yes. Aside from planetary fortresses and missile turrets, there aren't any good static defenses that are good at defending relatively out-of-the-way bases. Vipers tend to make static defenses irrelevant with blinding cloud as well. Siege Tanks aren't that great either. (infamous protoss deathball a-move winning against a dozen + Tanks behind an engineering bay wall or otherwise)
Aside from PF and Missile Turrets, Terran has no building based static-d. Widow mines, however, are excellent at static defense. If a flock of mutas fly in, two Widow Mines and two Missile Turrets and those mutas don't ever want to go to that base again. Plus, you can pick those mines up and walk them around or attack with them if you need to, increasing their efficiency for their cost.
Show nested quote +To build spine crawlers in sufficient numbers to stop marauders or roaches or sentry-heavy aggression zerg has to use 4-6 drones plus the minerals which hurts income and thus unit numbers.
Queen is a gud unit yes I suppose I was quite vague. But, 4-6 drones plus minerals isn't that much as opposed to a 1-base all-in. 2 base all-in's are fine for the most part imo, and you can't really incorporate Marauders into a 1-base all-in without having so few units that you can't deal with a large number of Speedlings.
A one base all-in for the most part should not be relying on power. Usually the purpose is to throw your opponent off and get an easy win. If you give the Zerg time enough to build 6 Spine Crawlers when you push (An investment of 900 minerals and 6 supply/larvae, by the way, so technically more expensive than photon cannons) then that push will fail. One base all-ins are bad anyways, and are considered cheese. They're not meant to be uber-awesome builds.
Show nested quote +And the Nexus cannon... Protoss and terran have strong static defenses Zerg defense is units. And creep. Even the swarm host is a static-style unit like the siege tank. Zerg direct-damage static defense (spines, spores) is a lot weaker than Nexus cannon or a full bunker or widow mines. Yes outside of turrets and planetary terran static defense is unit-based but those units are stronger than zerg static defense and making them doesn't limit your future economy.
Only in ZvZ with spores against mutalisks and having spores to kill medivacs on small terran drops is zerg static defense truly strong. Unless you're lategame and build the great wall of spines. The main difference is that a bunker requires units, and as such, if you're going Mech you have to choose if you want to be defensive (since Tank based armies can't attack the enemy very easily) or if you want to be aggressive with Hellions, Banshees, drops, or etc. You can't effectively do both, not very easily anyway. The Mothership Core can be used offensively as well, and you always get it. It's a mistake not to get one, so it's just shy of impossible to win with an early push because the Protoss is being greedy at the professional level.
A bunker may require units, but you can use those units later AND salvage AND repair the bunker, making it really efficient against attacks to your front. If you're going mech and you want to be defensive... Widow Mines... Good Tank positioning.... And if you want to be aggressive? Drops (With Widow Mines and Hellbats). Hellions. Banshees work too. You can effectively do both, you just have to be very very careful, and work to get up your bases in a way that they'll be making you the money you need. There are several pros who play mech quite often (Hell, there are even a couple that use it in TvP nowadays).
The Mothership Core is really strong. Yes. It gives the Protoss a LOT of power early game, both defensively and offensively. As a Zerg player, I can't tell you how to deal with that one, but I'm sure there's a way.
Show nested quote +Unless all-inning zerg has to play somewhat defensive zerg can't sacrifice economy for army as effectively early game. Larvae are a limiting factor early game until zerg has enough economy and hatcheries / queens to support rebuilding a lost army. IMO there's a difference between a bust, a timing, and an all-in with Zerg. I've seen all three in the GSL, so while this has some merit, I ultimately disagree.
Zerg has a fairly wide-range of playstyles, but every one of them is larvae limited, and every one carries risk. Just like every other strategy in Starcraft.
Show nested quote +I don't think the 'tech path' of any race is rigid. Protoss and terran both have the ability to counter the power of larva inject. Mules and chrono boost, warp-in, reactors.
It just sounds like you want the BW tank back and the game is imba against terran because the BW tank is gone, the BW tank was effective in BW because maps were generally more choke-heavy and broken up than in SC2. Plus, pathing. Changing SC2 maps to make the SC2 siege tank anywhere near as effective as the BW siege tank would break the game. It would hugely change and imbalance ZvP as well as TvP and TvZ. IMO that depends on how you chance the maps, and how you change the Siege Tank. In my eyes, Mech has always been a very short distance from becoming viable- the only problem was that it's all uphill and can only go in one direction., (metaphor for not being able to be viable on both large and small maps) Let me make myself clear: I believe that the game is 100% balanced, but the design is just off. Hence why I made this blog. I know that MULEs etc can 'counter' injects, it's just that it limits Terran to one composition. Terran has a myriad of early game openers in every match up, but they all go towards one composition per match up.
There are several pros that use mech. It's gotten less popular since HotS came out, but that doesn't mean it's gone. And it certainly doesn't mean it isn't viable. No one has figured out the game yet, and no one will for awhile. Just keep working at it, and (like with anything) it'll get better with time.
|
|
|
Aside from PF and Missile Turrets, Terran has no building based static-d. Widow mines, however, are excellent at static defense. If a flock of mutas fly in, two Widow Mines and two Missile Turrets and those mutas don't ever want to go to that base again. Plus, you can pick those mines up and walk them around or attack with them if you need to, increasing their efficiency for their cost. My problem with Widow Mines is that they're too hit-or-miss. They're not solid units, they're more gimmicky and all-or-nothing type units.
You can move them around and etc, but they're almost useless against a deathball, mainly Protoss ones.
In my low master level games, I occasionally get opponents who bring an overseer with their Muta flock, and just focus fire the 90 HP Widow Mine and kill it in one go, using the regen and higher speed in HotS to great effect against both widow mines and missile turrets. Widow Mines aren't quite as effective as you make them out to be in HotS.
A one base all-in for the most part should not be relying on power. Usually the purpose is to throw your opponent off and get an easy win. If you give the Zerg time enough to build 6 Spine Crawlers when you push (An investment of 900 minerals and 6 supply/larvae, by the way, so technically more expensive than photon cannons) then that push will fail. One base all-ins are bad anyways, and are considered cheese. They're not meant to be uber-awesome builds. True, but honestly, having a grand total of zero one-base builds that can severely damage if not destroy a Zerg player's economy is pretty terrible. 11/11 being held with pure drone until spines come up comes to mind, even if the Zerg is unprepared. :/
A bunker may require units, but you can use those units later AND salvage AND repair the bunker, making it really efficient against attacks to your front. If you're going mech and you want to be defensive... Widow Mines... Good Tank positioning.... And if you want to be aggressive? Drops (With Widow Mines and Hellbats). Hellions. Banshees work too. You can effectively do both, you just have to be very very careful, and work to get up your bases in a way that they'll be making you the money you need. There are several pros who play mech quite often (Hell, there are even a couple that use it in TvP nowadays).
The Mothership Core is really strong. Yes. It gives the Protoss a LOT of power early game, both defensively and offensively. As a Zerg player, I can't tell you how to deal with that one, but I'm sure there's a way. Your point about bunkers is true for Bio, but since it costs supply, you can't throw one down at a base to defend it if it's a base past your third. Building a second PF is the only cost-effective option for ground defense, and it's a very one-dimensional choice.
Widow Mines and good Tank positioning work against Zerg to a good extent, if you know aggression is coming 100%. Otherwise, I could end up with hardly any AA vs a flock of 10 Mutas, (Widow Mines can help but 3-5 mines vs 10 Mutas is not my cup of tea) or the Zerg is just greedy and I can't really punish him since I have hardly any Hellbats to tank damage, or maybe it's a Protoss going for some other sort of all-in with hallucinated units to tank the widow mine shots.
My big problem is that Tanks just aren't good enough when set up without being in a choke point and behind a wall. I think that a small damage buff along with standardization of maps could solve that problem.
As for the Mothership Core: You don't really 'deal' with it, mostly you just kill it or EMP it before it can cast timewarp on your army, keeping you from dodging storms.
Zerg has a fairly wide-range of playstyles, but every one of them is larvae limited, and every one carries risk. Just like every other strategy in Starcraft. Yes, but the point of the quoted post was that Zerg couldn't all-in. They can, as proven multiple times by the GSL.
There are several pros that use mech. It's gotten less popular since HotS came out, but that doesn't mean it's gone. And it certainly doesn't mean it isn't viable. No one has figured out the game yet, and no one will for awhile. Just keep working at it, and (like with anything) it'll get better with time. There are also several pros using Marine/Tank in TvT, several pros using Swarmhosts in TvZ, but you tend not to see them in the Ro4 and up in major tournaments at the minimum.
|
Aside from PF and Missile Turrets, Terran has no building based static-d. Widow mines, however, are excellent at static defense. If a flock of mutas fly in, two Widow Mines and two Missile Turrets and those mutas don't ever want to go to that base again. Plus, you can pick those mines up and walk them around or attack with them if you need to, increasing their efficiency for their cost.
Widow mines are easy to dodge, easy to kill with mutalisks (you need to have 2 widow mines stacked directly on top of each other for it to not die and even then they can still die before getting a shot off) and are easy to micro against and negate their damage. Turrets are the only good way to deal with mutas, but they can easily get overwhelmed when you start dealing with 25 mutas or so.
A bunker may require units, but you can use those units later AND salvage AND repair the bunker, making it really efficient against attacks to your front. If you're going mech and you want to be defensive... Widow Mines... Good Tank positioning.... And if you want to be aggressive? Drops (With Widow Mines and Hellbats). Hellions. Banshees work too. You can effectively do both, you just have to be very very careful, and work to get up your bases in a way that they'll be making you the money you need. There are several pros who play mech quite often (Hell, there are even a couple that use it in TvP nowadays).
1.) Lost mining time + repair cost = huge expense for a single building of static defense.
2.) Huge build time (45 seconds and unit build time) for no guarantee that you can even repair it if they use forcefield.
3.) Easy to circumvent or just kill with banelings that also splashes the SCVs repairing it.
Widow Mines have the issue of being completely unreliable static defense and having no guarantee that they even do the damage they are intended to do. You can easily send 2 or 3 lings to block the widow mines, and they have such short range anyway that most units can just avoid them. There is also a tiny spot that makes it easy to see where they are placed and helps you know how to engage. Just run 2 or 3 lings up a ramp first to see if there are any on the ramp, detonate the widow mines then kill the bunkers. It's really simple. They also have really long recharge times and pretty long build times, despite being cheap.
|
I think the map pool is ok, thank god there is a veto system. But SC II games generally go with some light pressure at the start, and than macro up to super armies and fight. Than do it again.
|
You raise some good points. I agree I'd like to see it more, but I don't know that it isn't viable. The trick is finding the way to stay alive, and be more effective than bio. It's not easy, but I think we'll see it some more in the future. <3
|
On July 17 2013 22:47 HeeroFX wrote:
I think the map pool is ok, thank god there is a veto system. But SC II games generally go with some light pressure at the start, and than macro up to super armies and fight. Than do it again.
Yeah, same thing every game. :/
On July 18 2013 00:01 FluffyBinLaden wrote:
You raise some good points. I agree I'd like to see it more, but I don't know that it isn't viable. The trick is finding the way to stay alive, and be more effective than bio. It's not easy, but I think we'll see it some more in the future. <3 I disagree that Mech hasn't been explored enough, but okay. <3
|
On July 17 2013 17:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:Missile turrets, bunkers, planetary fortresses, widow mines, and siege tanks all suck? Show nested quote +while Zerg has the cheapest and most easily mass produced static defenses, and one of the best defensive units in the game, the Queen. To build spine crawlers in sufficient numbers to stop marauders or roaches or sentry-heavy aggression zerg has to use 4-6 drones plus the minerals which hurts income and thus unit numbers. Queen is a gud unit yes Show nested quote +Protoss is in the middle, with strong defensive units and a moderately expensive cannon that is usable in two out of three match ups. And the Nexus cannon... Protoss and terran have strong static defenses Zerg defense is units. And creep. Even the swarm host is a static-style unit like the siege tank. Zerg direct-damage static defense (spines, spores) is a lot weaker than Nexus cannon or a full bunker or widow mines. Yes outside of turrets and planetary terran static defense is unit-based but those units are stronger than zerg static defense and making them doesn't limit your future economy. Only in ZvZ with spores against mutalisks and having spores to kill medivacs on small terran drops is zerg static defense truly strong. Unless you're lategame and build the great wall of spines. Show nested quote +This, along with larvae allowing Zerg to build both drones and units from the same structure while Terran and Protoss have to build more expensive production facilities, allows Zerg to be very defensive for most of the game, no matter what the opponent is doing. Unless all-inning zerg has to play somewhat defensive zerg can't sacrifice economy for army as effectively early game. Larvae are a limiting factor early game until zerg has enough economy and hatcheries / queens to support rebuilding a lost army. Show nested quote +On the Terran and Protoss' side, they both have more rigid tech paths as well as a slower growing economy, however they have much more cost effective units, when they're used well. This forces aggression from these two races in every match up, while trying to sit back and build economy to four bases before doing anything is suicide. I don't think the 'tech path' of any race is rigid. Protoss and terran both have the ability to counter the power of larva inject. Mules and chrono boost, warp-in, reactors. It just sounds like you want the BW tank back and the game is imba against terran because the BW tank is gone, the BW tank was effective in BW because maps were generally more choke-heavy and broken up than in SC2. Plus, pathing. Changing SC2 maps to make the SC2 siege tank anywhere near as effective as the BW siege tank would break the game. It would hugely change and imbalance ZvP as well as TvP and TvZ.
lolwut, how are tanks and widow mines static defense? Just because they stand still sometimes doesn't mean they are static defense.
|
On July 18 2013 03:52 9-BiT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 17:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:Static defenses in this game suck for Terran, Missile turrets, bunkers, planetary fortresses, widow mines, and siege tanks all suck? while Zerg has the cheapest and most easily mass produced static defenses, and one of the best defensive units in the game, the Queen. To build spine crawlers in sufficient numbers to stop marauders or roaches or sentry-heavy aggression zerg has to use 4-6 drones plus the minerals which hurts income and thus unit numbers. Queen is a gud unit yes Protoss is in the middle, with strong defensive units and a moderately expensive cannon that is usable in two out of three match ups. And the Nexus cannon... Protoss and terran have strong static defenses Zerg defense is units. And creep. Even the swarm host is a static-style unit like the siege tank. Zerg direct-damage static defense (spines, spores) is a lot weaker than Nexus cannon or a full bunker or widow mines. Yes outside of turrets and planetary terran static defense is unit-based but those units are stronger than zerg static defense and making them doesn't limit your future economy. Only in ZvZ with spores against mutalisks and having spores to kill medivacs on small terran drops is zerg static defense truly strong. Unless you're lategame and build the great wall of spines. This, along with larvae allowing Zerg to build both drones and units from the same structure while Terran and Protoss have to build more expensive production facilities, allows Zerg to be very defensive for most of the game, no matter what the opponent is doing. Unless all-inning zerg has to play somewhat defensive zerg can't sacrifice economy for army as effectively early game. Larvae are a limiting factor early game until zerg has enough economy and hatcheries / queens to support rebuilding a lost army. On the Terran and Protoss' side, they both have more rigid tech paths as well as a slower growing economy, however they have much more cost effective units, when they're used well. This forces aggression from these two races in every match up, while trying to sit back and build economy to four bases before doing anything is suicide. I don't think the 'tech path' of any race is rigid. Protoss and terran both have the ability to counter the power of larva inject. Mules and chrono boost, warp-in, reactors. It just sounds like you want the BW tank back and the game is imba against terran because the BW tank is gone, the BW tank was effective in BW because maps were generally more choke-heavy and broken up than in SC2. Plus, pathing. Changing SC2 maps to make the SC2 siege tank anywhere near as effective as the BW siege tank would break the game. It would hugely change and imbalance ZvP as well as TvP and TvZ. lolwut, how are tanks and widow mines static defense? Just because they stand still sometimes doesn't mean they are static defense. I do agree with this. Widow Mines don't really function as static defenses. Ever.
|
On July 17 2013 22:20 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 17:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
And the Nexus cannon... Protoss and terran have strong static defenses Zerg defense is units. And creep. Even the swarm host is a static-style unit like the siege tank. Zerg direct-damage static defense (spines, spores) is a lot weaker than Nexus cannon or a full bunker or widow mines. Yes outside of turrets and planetary terran static defense is unit-based but those units are stronger than zerg static defense and making them doesn't limit your future economy. You have Swarm Hosts and you're complaining about the Nexus Cannon. How quaint.
You can't comprehend what you read. There was no complaining about Nexus cannon or about any other of the static defenses of any race. You are comparing a spell available early in the game to a tier 2.5 unit. You also do not appear to know what the word "quaint" means. How typical.
Turrets are the only good way to deal with mutas, but they can easily get overwhelmed when you start dealing with 25 mutas or so.
...Of course turrets get overwhelmed when 20+ mutas show up, they're supposed to. That kind of attack is a huge investment in gas, minerals, and larvae, a few turrents aren't supposed to stop it.
lolwut, how are tanks and widow mines static defense? Just because they stand still sometimes doesn't mean they are static defense.
lolwut
defense that doesn't move when providing defense is a static defense. widow mines can't go off unless they're buried, siege tanks can't fire in the long-range siege mode unless they're actually in you know siege mode where they can't move. when used defensively they fulfill the static-defense role.
I do agree with this. Widow Mines don't really function as static defenses. Ever.
Watch more games of players better than you are then.
|
Static defense are buildings built that either tank damage or do damage. Reavers aren't static defense because they need a shuttle to move them around. You're the kind of person that thinks mech is hellbat Thor, and thinks micro is small.
|
I stopped reading when "static de for T sux"...
|
On July 18 2013 17:47 MarlieChurphy wrote:
I stopped reading when "static de for T sux"...
That's too bad, because it's true. If you would defend your position you might actually have a post that has more value than 1 more in your post count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
