EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/r0sOQb7.jpg)
Swarmhost Game Balance
| Blogs > LaLuSh |
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
| ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
Also it is true that the protoss didnt mine minerals, he mines gas however because it is pretty much the only ressource you need in these situations. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
| ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On February 23 2015 00:31 OtherWorld wrote: Well, that's on point. Although the fact that there are only Zerg symbols in the "1:1 efficiency" etc bars and no Protoss symbols is disturbing d: Yeah, my bad. Should have made that clearer by adding toss symbol. | ||
|
MavivaM
1535 Posts
| ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
On February 23 2015 04:50 MavivaM wrote: What baffles me the most it's that your blogs aren't featured.. Well this is his first in 3 years. Remain baffled no more! LotV's decrease of resources per base as well as a Swarm host/PDD change is currently their plan for fixing this sort of thing. Perhaps it'll work? | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9152 Posts
| ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
| ||
|
Weavel
Finland9221 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
SC2 just isn't the game where expanding all over the place or keeping map control is rewarded. There are no truly gas intensive units for each race that are actually mineral light as well. The closest thing is HT/Archon which is 1:3 minerals:gas. This unit creates some great comebacks in scrappy 6gas-minerals-mined-out-situations, but we don't really see it being massed by some person who was great at expanding. The closest thing for Zerg in terms of mass expanding is 10/12gas mutalisk but it's rarely used. (this game from Scarlett is a great example of how expanding unlocks a brand new powerful composition that wouldn't be available in this mass otherwise) The game designers are not even utilizing half the spectrum of what's possible with -SC2- mining (we don't even need to talk about BW mining at this point). 85%++ of SC2's army compositions are stuck on the mineral side and in general the unit compositions aren't really that interesting and kinda all play out the same way. A ball here, some ranged units, they deal damage, maybe a spell or two, that's it ... You can either alter mining and create low tech games where map control/keeping bases is everything, or you could alter the 200/200 endgame comps and mineral:gas ratios to be more interesting and not stale and boring. Two good ways to fix the same problem. If Protoss had a T3 unit that was basically an anti-building suicide flyer that cost 0/75 and would demolish buildings, maybe we'd see some Protoss players expanding rapidly to strategically reduce the opponent's infrastructure for example? We rarely see someone ever attacking buildings in this game, it's all about the army vs army. There's a lot of stuff that could be done in theory to make the game (and expanding) more colorful, until then it's all about the 3/4base 6-8gas and what the players do with that money because that's how the tech trees look and that's how the m:g ratios are built up. Also map control is a very sensitive topic and if you mess around the strength of it too much you'll have even more severe map imbalances. Zerg exponential econ getting even stronger? warp prism/warpgate being even stronger? creep? there's a lot of stuff to account for. | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
Similairly, snute couldve never turtled that ammount of bases elsewhere. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12351 Posts
Swarmhost style is about giving up map control for an exchange of a slower cost efficient army. I think the only thing lacking is that the swarmhost style just don't have the finishing attack capability and players always try to play until the very end and the games get dragged out too long. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
I agree that the economy of Brood War was way better...but i don't think it's really the economy that's creating these stalemates in SC2 - it's the unit design/balance. Swarmhosts cause this, and hard counter cause this. Why does mech have to turtle vs Protoss to be even near playable? Because the immortal forces Terran to have a second unit to even be able to fight the opponent's army (ghost). Meaning no trades can happen before that or the mech Terran autoloses to the over cost efficient immortal. Same goes for mech/protoss vs swarmhost. There is no ability to trade with free units because...you then autolose the game. Since mech/protoss can never trade with free units it means once swarmhosts hit the map you're forced to sit there and do the only possible counter which is to get your own cost efficient units of mass tempest/raven or you just slowly die. Things like collosus from Protoss are cost effective the point that they require the hard counter from the opponent - if you do not have a prerequisite number of vikings/corruptors/vipers you cannot even fight your opponent's army. You have to sit and wait till you have the "unit counter" meaning you're forced to wait. A lot of the bullshit SC2 end game is from the hard counter system and poorly designed units like the swarm host and the immortal. When you put in units that 100% require the opponent to have to sit there and produce the counter unit or autolose the game...the game then gets dragged out as the next "counter" in the chain of hard counters has to be accumulated or that player loses. Imagine a game where a Terran could go mech vs Protoss and not have to wait till ghosts or ravens and fight and trade well with immortals. The best example i can give that i always give on stream of how idiotic and limiting the hard counter system is this one that you might appreciate Lalush and every other Brood War player here: 10 dragoons with range vs 10 vultures with speed/mines: This engagement has an unpredictable outcome every game. Whoever micros better with mine surrounds, or whoever micros better with their dragoon kiting and target firing can win this engagement. It's up in the air. Run a scenario like this many many times and it's possible for both players to have a chance. Now look at SC2 10 stalkers vs 10 hellions: The stalkers always win 100% of the time NO MATTER WHAT. What does this mean? It means ONE PLAYER CANNOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO FIGHT THE OPPONENT'S UNITS. He has to just go back and wait till he's built up the counter unit. So yah...i think a lot of it is the unit design and the terrible choice to implement the hard counter system where all too often if you do not have the counter then you simply cannot ever fight your opponent's units. | ||
Chill
Calgary25977 Posts
On February 23 2015 11:21 avilo wrote: It's always been know that end game in SC2 is only about army vs army and who has the better or more efficient 200/200 army and is able to keep theirs alive while killing the opponents. I agree that the economy of Brood War was way better...but i don't think it's really the economy that's creating these stalemates in SC2 - it's the unit design/balance. Swarmhosts cause this, and hard counter cause this. Why does mech have to turtle vs Protoss to be even near playable? Because the immortal forces Terran to have a second unit to even be able to fight the opponent's army (ghost). Meaning no trades can happen before that or the mech Terran autoloses to the over cost efficient immortal. Same goes for mech/protoss vs swarmhost. There is no ability to trade with free units because...you then autolose the game. Since mech/protoss can never trade with free units it means once swarmhosts hit the map you're forced to sit there and do the only possible counter which is to get your own cost efficient units of mass tempest/raven or you just slowly die. Things like collosus from Protoss are cost effective the point that they require the hard counter from the opponent - if you do not have a prerequisite number of vikings/corruptors/vipers you cannot even fight your opponent's army. You have to sit and wait till you have the "unit counter" meaning you're forced to wait. A lot of the bullshit SC2 end game is from the hard counter system and poorly designed units like the swarm host and the immortal. When you put in units that 100% require the opponent to have to sit there and produce the counter unit or autolose the game...the game then gets dragged out as the next "counter" in the chain of hard counters has to be accumulated or that player loses. Imagine a game where a Terran could go mech vs Protoss and not have to wait till ghosts or ravens and fight and trade well with immortals. The best example i can give that i always give on stream of how idiotic and limiting the hard counter system is this one that you might appreciate Lalush and every other Brood War player here: 10 dragoons with range vs 10 vultures with speed/mines: This engagement has an unpredictable outcome every game. Whoever micros better with mine surrounds, or whoever micros better with their dragoon kiting and target firing can win this engagement. It's up in the air. Run a scenario like this many many times and it's possible for both players to have a chance. Now look at SC2 10 stalkers vs 10 hellions: The stalkers always win 100% of the time NO MATTER WHAT. What does this mean? It means ONE PLAYER CANNOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO FIGHT THE OPPONENT'S UNITS. He has to just go back and wait till he's built up the counter unit. So yah...i think a lot of it is the unit design and the terrible choice to implement the hard counter system where all too often if you do not have the counter then you simply cannot ever fight your opponent's units. One of the worst posts ever on this website. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On February 23 2015 14:10 Chill wrote: One of the worst posts ever on this website. Especially when you read Snute's post just before reading this one lol | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On February 23 2015 08:45 Liquid`Snute wrote: You don't have to change to BW economy to make the game more interesting, the developers are barely using half the spectrum when it comes to mineral:gas ratios as it is. What if mining gas was actually useful? Tech units and the entire 200/200 game is underdeveloped in SC2 and kinda primitive if you ask me. SC2 just isn't the game where expanding all over the place or keeping map control is rewarded. There are no truly gas intensive units for each race that are actually mineral light as well. The closest thing is HT/Archon which is 1:3 minerals:gas. This unit creates some great comebacks in scrappy 6gas-minerals-mined-out-situations, but we don't really see it being massed by some person who was great at expanding. The closest thing for Zerg in terms of mass expanding is 10/12gas mutalisk but it's rarely used. (this game from Scarlett is a great example of how expanding unlocks a brand new powerful composition that wouldn't be available in this mass otherwise) The game designers are not even utilizing half the spectrum of what's possible with -SC2- mining (we don't even need to talk about BW mining at this point). 85%++ of SC2's army compositions are stuck on the mineral side and in general the unit compositions aren't really that interesting and kinda all play out the same way. A ball here, some ranged units, they deal damage, maybe a spell or two, that's it ... You can either alter mining and create low tech games where map control/keeping bases is everything, or you could alter the 200/200 endgame comps and mineral:gas ratios to be more interesting and not stale and boring. Two good ways to fix the same problem. If Protoss had a T3 unit that was basically an anti-building suicide flyer that cost 0/75 and would demolish buildings, maybe we'd see some Protoss players expanding rapidly to strategically reduce the opponent's infrastructure for example? We rarely see someone ever attacking buildings in this game, it's all about the army vs army. There's a lot of stuff that could be done in theory to make the game (and expanding) more colorful, until then it's all about the 3/4base 6-8gas and what the players do with that money because that's how the tech trees look and that's how the m:g ratios are built up. Also map control is a very sensitive topic and if you mess around the strength of it too much you'll have even more severe map imbalances. Zerg exponential econ getting even stronger? warp prism/warpgate being even stronger? creep? there's a lot of stuff to account for. There's no reason, as you say, that gas couldn't be made a more driving resource in SC2. Especially as it doesn't require as many workers as mining minerals. So expanding would be encouraged even in the current economic system if there were worthwile mineral-light and gas-heavy units to build. But personally I think the rate at which bases are saturated and the rate at which you get to 200 supply is a big part of the problem as well. You have a set number of workers you can afford in that 200 supply. That means in order to mine or harvest more of one resource, you essentially always have to sacrifice income on the other resource. You're right that we can't just change econ and not expect unforseen problems like perhaps zerg with 4 larva inject balling completely out of control. That's what they should focus on with LotV. Though I'm not all too positive about the econ system they've chosen. I have a feeling it's not going to mesh well with current extreme macro mechanics. | ||
Falling
Canada11340 Posts
LotV proposes to compound how quickly bases are used up. So you have a quick build up, but also quick use of resources- closer to Boom and Bust, particularly with mules involved. I wonder then, if this will lend itself to more starve out strategies? For instance, in BW in some situations I've found as Protoss against a hyper turtling Terran player, it's not cost-effect to bust into his base, even with recalls (tons of turrets and anti-recall mines.) Therefore, if I have map control and can trade well enough when Terran tries to move out, I can eventually starve out a 2 or 3 base Terran without many big battles. If SC2 uses up bases quicker, but one player gets sufficiently ahead, is it more likely to see starve out strategies? If you're locked out of the map and with less resources per base, I suspect that you are very quickly put on a timer to bust out or else shrivel and die. I don't know, but I'm curious to see how it pans out. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 23 2015 08:45 Liquid`Snute wrote: You don't have to change to BW economy to make the game more interesting, the developers are barely using half the spectrum when it comes to mineral:gas ratios as it is. What if mining gas was actually useful? Tech units and the entire 200/200 game is underdeveloped in SC2 and kinda primitive if you ask me. SC2 just isn't the game where expanding all over the place or keeping map control is rewarded. There are no truly gas intensive units for each race that are actually mineral light as well. The closest thing is HT/Archon which is 1:3 minerals:gas. This unit creates some great comebacks in scrappy 6gas-minerals-mined-out-situations, but we don't really see it being massed by some person who was great at expanding. The closest thing for Zerg in terms of mass expanding is 10/12gas mutalisk but it's rarely used. (this game from Scarlett is a great example of how expanding unlocks a brand new powerful composition that wouldn't be available in this mass otherwise) The game designers are not even utilizing half the spectrum of what's possible with -SC2- mining (we don't even need to talk about BW mining at this point). 85%++ of SC2's army compositions are stuck on the mineral side and in general the unit compositions aren't really that interesting and kinda all play out the same way. A ball here, some ranged units, they deal damage, maybe a spell or two, that's it ... You can either alter mining and create low tech games where map control/keeping bases is everything, or you could alter the 200/200 endgame comps and mineral:gas ratios to be more interesting and not stale and boring. Two good ways to fix the same problem. If Protoss had a T3 unit that was basically an anti-building suicide flyer that cost 0/75 and would demolish buildings, maybe we'd see some Protoss players expanding rapidly to strategically reduce the opponent's infrastructure for example? We rarely see someone ever attacking buildings in this game, it's all about the army vs army. There's a lot of stuff that could be done in theory to make the game (and expanding) more colorful, until then it's all about the 3/4base 6-8gas and what the players do with that money because that's how the tech trees look and that's how the m:g ratios are built up. Also map control is a very sensitive topic and if you mess around the strength of it too much you'll have even more severe map imbalances. Zerg exponential econ getting even stronger? warp prism/warpgate being even stronger? creep? there's a lot of stuff to account for. Hm, I'm actually wondering if this is really true. I understand your point and initially fully agreed, but then I remembered that back in the days we were playing mass 100/150 Infestors and 300/250 Broodlords. And even though those ratios look kind of balanced and still devour minerals, they really aren't in terms of the fixed mineral:gas ratio per base which is roughly 3:1 at optimal workerefficiency and 4:1 if you oversaturate your minerals. So the ~1:1 ratio of Broodlords already means it is 3times more gasintense than what you get from your (efficiently saturated) bases, for Infestors 2:3 ratio it is like 4.5times as gasintense than what you get. The same goes for Vipers and Mutalisks. The other races have these sorts of units as well, High Templar/Archon, Sentry, Oracle, Carrier, Dark Templar, Raven, Siege Tank, Battlecruiser, Medivac. So I wouldn't blame the inexistance of units that you can spend your gas on that we don't saturate extra bases. I think it is rather that the greatest amount of those units aren't universally useful in the lategame. Sure Vipers are great, but Infestors aren't on WoL level anymore where they can really replace an army on their own with them. Neither can High Templar/Archons become the bulk of your army, because they aren't that good vs ghosts or Swarm Hosts. Ravens are incredibly strong - but only against Zerg and when massed. Against Terran they are still good, but against Protoss noone makes them. So my conclusion would be that massing those heavy gas units just isn't a great strategy very often. Also many of the named units aren't that fun and I'd prefer them not to be overly viable to begin with. @avilo's point, I don't get all the hate for it. I'm arguing here something similar, that it is hard to actually use many of the more gasintense units to begin with, because the opponent either counters them all along or can very easily counter/negate them. Hence playing strategies revolving around them, be it turtling to survive to them, or mass expanding to get the gas for them aren't being played over the standard Bio vs Colossus/Gateway. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On February 23 2015 21:21 OtherWorld wrote: ^Except that his point is terribly biased and is a "subtle" balance whine ("but i don't think it's really the economy that's creating these stalemates in SC2 - it's the unit design/balance."). And his last example is false, Dayshi proved that hellions can be very efficient versus Stalkers. my 1k mineral worth of unit can't beat his 1250/500 investment, game is unbalanced. And Maru isn't playing sc2 since you need vikings vs colo. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 23 2015 21:43 sAsImre wrote: my 1k mineral worth of unit can't beat his 1250/500 investment, game is unbalanced. And Maru isn't playing sc2 since you need vikings vs colo. Oh come on, that's not really the point is it? I get that he is racially biased and not the most liked person but he didn't go all out saying "herp derp, swarm hosts are broken and immortals/Protoss is imbalanced", he specified that they are bad design for the game. Let's skip over the exact numbers he gives, because that's really not the point here. The question is if the amount of units you could have is reasonable against the amount of units you do face and the strategies your opponent can deploy. Whether it is 10hellions or 15hellions against 10stalkers we are talking about, you won't be able to combat the stalkers and with proper blink play you also won't be able to achieve much if the Protoss isn't terribly out of position with the stalkers. You'd need like 20hellions, which might still be OK for the resource cost but not for the supply cost and in many occurances questionable timingwise (try to counter a dedicated blink play with mass hellions). The unit interaction does lead to a strategy that tells you to not build hellions if your opponent builds stalkers. Dayshi's strategy... + Show Spoiler + ... is the Mech equivalent of a roach-max or a Protoss 7gate. You max out on 100res/2supply units and then combat a 140-150supply Protoss. The reason it worked for Dayshi for some times is that a) he skipped tech (mass reactors on the factories, no hightech production available) while the Protoss didn't (Collossus tech), so he had a more expensive army b) hellions are one of the most time-efficient units to produce because their production time combined with reactors is only 15seconds/hellion, so you need very few production facilities to produce them. Hence, he gets even more hellions by only using 3-4factories compared to the 7-8protoss production facilities. c) his Protoss opponents walked in the open too early with their massively cheaper (see a) and b) ) composition and got surrounded. Really, all you have to do against this strategy is wait a little longer, same as with roach maxes, because Dayshi is maxed on hellions. His army won't get better but the Protoss has still 50supply open to work with. The strategy isn't garbage, but it relies on the opponents not knowing what to do against it. The point is, it doesn't proof that hellions are good vs stalkers, but that production-heavy "all-in" builds usually have a timing window against tech-heavy builds. It's like saying zealots are good against roaches because a 7gate can work despite a zerg having a few roaches out. It's still also a numbers game. And yes, you can build Vikings on time against Colossi. You also can go for quite some time against Colossi without making Vikings. It's not the best example in the book because of that, but you still eventually need 15-20vikings to combat a Protoss making 5 Colossi. Which is a massive counter-strategy. It would be much better if yes, you needed something like vikings to combat many Colossi. But you didn't need to match or exceed the Colossus costs in costs of your counter. The Viper in this regard is a much more interesting counter to the Colossus, because you don't need like 2 Vipers per Colossus and the Viper does much more for the Zerg in the shortrun (blinding cloud, abducting other targets like immortals) and longrun, up to the point that you want to build Vipers anyways, regardless of whether Colossi are in play or not. Well, enough derailing of the thread and since I haven't said it yet @Lalush: as always a very good insight and example why the economy and mapcontrol game is not as good as it could be. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25977 Posts
On February 23 2015 23:49 Big J wrote: Oh come on, that's not really the point is it? I get that he is racially biased and not the most liked person but he didn't go all out saying "herp derp, swarm hosts are broken and immortals/Protoss is imbalanced", he specified that they are bad design for the game. Let's skip over the exact numbers he gives, because that's really not the point here. The question is if the amount of units you could have is reasonable against the amount of units you do face and the strategies your opponent can deploy. Whether it is 10hellions or 15hellions against 10stalkers we are talking about, you won't be able to combat the stalkers and with proper blink play you also won't be able to achieve much if the Protoss isn't terribly out of position with the stalkers. You'd need like 20hellions, which might still be OK for the resource cost but not for the supply cost and in many occurances questionable timingwise (try to counter a dedicated blink play with mass hellions). The unit interaction does lead to a strategy that tells you to not build hellions if your opponent builds stalkers. Yea, and if you build Zerglings against Vultures, you are going to lose. There is a problem with SC2, but it's not going to be found in this "hard counter" bullshit avilo is talking about. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 24 2015 00:03 Chill wrote: Yea, and if you build Zerglings against Vultures, you are going to lose. There is a problem with SC2, but it's not going to be found in this "hard counter" bullshit avilo is talking about. Oh come one, could we please refrain from reducing everything to the literal examples given. I get it, zerglings die to vultures. Hellions are no good response to stalkers. The point is, what else are you going to do? The answer in your example is, you make hydras. The answer in my example is you just skip on the Mech, or you play a very questionable "boring" style of turtlemech. In case of Swarm Hosts you go some turtlecrap yourself, or vis-verca, against Mech/Protoss turtlecrap you go some Swarm Host turtlecrap. Because those turtle-options, regardless from which side, just start to counter all your other options. His point is very valid, because often the counterrelations in the game are not in a way that you can just easily grab T1 hydras vs vultures (not to mention that when you go up the techtree nearly everything works vs vultures too). Very often you need to grab Tempests and Colossi and Ravens and stuff like that and you stop trading. People like Lalush used to point out how we are capped on 3 base economies. Now compare that with a Mech vs Swarm Host game or the game presented in the OP. We are talking about 1-2mining bases. And the resource banks go up!!! This tells me that there must be something seriously off with the unit interactions if 40mins in the game you cannot kill stuff faster than a single base can reproduce it. Hardcounters on their own aren't the problem, but their positioning in the techtree and their design has a lot to do with it. This goes back to the Mech vs Protoss example avilo gives. The game doesn't turn stale here because of a base limit. It turns stale because after opening Mech the Protoss has built Immortals and Archons and now you need another hightech unit in the ghost and after that he is going to have Tempests so you need another branched out hightech unit in form of the Raven. The problem is that you sit around all day spreading all across your techtrees to be able to go toe to toe with the Protoss in the longrun. It's not like bio TvZ where, when the Zerg makes ultras you already have all the tech ready to make marauders. Imagine that you'd need to get vikings when the Zerg goes mutalisks and how that would destroy the pace of the game; but the Terran doesn't! The units are good and useful enough without needing to heavily tech further, after a certain standard setup is reached. Or TvT when you need tanks to your bio - you have a factory already that you can use for that, no long "I need to get to X and then build up 5 of X before I can leave my defensive position again"-period required. Of course you can look at it like Lalush and point out that "well, if herO could use 10bases, he would not need to tech so much to begin with, because he'd be able to trade very inefficiently." But avilo's point of "why do we need so strong hardcounters in the game to begin with. If the unit interactions just were better, we would neither need to sit back and tech nor to sit back and heavily expand. Both sides could battle for their share of mapcontrol to begin with, if my only mobile unit and only mineraldump - the hellion - could move a little more freely on the map. And I could trade with Immortals/Swarm Hosts better to begin with, with what I have and can rebuild." (and vis-verca) is also valid. I agree with both points. I would like to use mapcontrol better, but I also don't like how the mapcontrol defaults into one race's favor very often to begin with. Battling with bio, drops, hellions, lings and roaches for mapcontrol and expansions is a much more fun gameplay to begin with - acquired in midgame ZvZ, PvP, TvT and TvZ - then having the Protoss sit on 2-3 bases unable to move out with anything but his whole army combined for 15mins. Regardless of whether my counterstrategy is to build 10bases or tech to swarm hosts, it would be better if Protoss just could move out and I didn't need to think of ways to get rid of the stuff I have to replace it with higher tier stuff. Or trying to kill him before he gets there (TvP). | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On February 23 2015 14:10 Chill wrote: One of the worst posts ever on this website. Yours or mine? I wrote a detailed description of a huge problem with SC2 out and you contributed nothing to the discussion. edit: and i honestly hope people are not nit picking the examples i gave. The point of the examples is to illustrate there are a ton of scenarios where you have battles that 100% cannot be even fought in SC2. Dragoons technically are a counter to vultures in SC1 with no micro, but with good surrounds/mines the fight can still be won by either player. But a lot of times in SC2 hard counters make it so one player just absolutely never would have a chance to win the fight and therefore they cannot even take the fight. | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
On February 24 2015 07:11 avilo wrote: Yours or mine? I wrote a detailed description of a huge problem with SC2 out and you contributed nothing to the discussion. edit: and i honestly hope people are not nit picking the examples i gave. The point of the examples is to illustrate there are a ton of scenarios where you have battles that 100% cannot be even fought in SC2. Dragoons technically are a counter to vultures in SC1 with no micro, but with good surrounds/mines the fight can still be won by either player. But a lot of times in SC2 hard counters make it so one player just absolutely never would have a chance to win the fight and therefore they cannot even take the fight. Avilo, just stop, you're just making yourself look worse. There's also no need to be passive aggressive. It's also hard to take your balance whine seriously when you advocate for T during the times they are the strongest | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On February 24 2015 08:20 parkufarku wrote: Avilo, just stop, you're just making yourself look worse. There's also no need to be passive aggressive. It's also hard to take your balance whine seriously when you advocate for T during the times they are the strongest I feel like you did not even read the posts written and just start spamming out memes "omg avilo whine." I did not balance whine anywhere in my last posts... .... ... ... Anyways, Lalush's post is about mostly the economy, i was just adding my two cents that the hard counter system is also a huge issue that has been forgotten in discussion since WoL beta. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
Avilo is right about saying that Chill's one liner is arguably a worse post in this thread. To be honest, I don't really understand the point of this thread though. ALl of this is going to change in LotV, I played a lot of the custom lotv maps and the economy change is really a step in the right direction. However, I think that the hard countering units thing is still a bit of an issue. For example; I played some games where I had smaller army but more bases and lurkers vs a no mobile detection protoss who just had fenix map control. I still couldn't force an engagement or take map control back because the fenix have too many roles (including countering lurkers). The opponent was forced to trade his larger armies for my hatcheries while my lurkers destroyed him but the fenix remain and keep me from countering and allowing me to get AA units (corruptors are shit vs fenix range and speed and hydra cost too much). Time will tell I suppose. | ||
| ||
