|
On April 04 2011 00:56 iChau wrote:
Zerg will always win a base-trade if it comes to it. If the protoss is incapable of defending and tries to all-in, the zerg just needs to sneak his army away and there goes the base trade. Zerg wins (more bases, more everything, including current multi-pronged attacks).
Far less buildings for toss to kill overall, and the deathball kills significantly faster. Also, if you're going roach hydra or ling/bling and you attempt to run up a ramp and find out while his deathball was base trading with you he warped in 4 sentries and can chain ff his ramp, you're gonna have a bad day.
On April 04 2011 00:56 iChau wrote:Lol I can't tell who you're siding with. However, zerg doesn't have a smaller army. You get so many more units compared to the deathball (high supply).
Drones and queens take up supply, and zerg generally has an excess of them.
|
On April 04 2011 01:40 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 01:29 Jeffbelittle wrote:
Balance isn't about difficulty to execute, it's about ability to execute.
If there is a counter to something, regardless of how much harder it is to counter than it is to execute, it's balanced. You're kidding, right? This is so absurd I'm not sure how to disprove it intelligently. If the counter to a bunker rush was just to run a 3 minute mile while doing a complex math problem and also reciting the entire works of Shakespeare? Would it still be balanced? Of course not.
Want to take some examples?
1)ZvT vs. TvZ Perspective on 2 Rax Expand:
The Zerg has to scout the 2 rax, get good creep spread going as fast as possible, get a spine crawler up in an optimal area, not overcommit by any means because if the marines don't come you're wicked down, check for bunkers, if there are bunkers, you need 4 workers to stop each bunker. Meanwhile a Terran only need to pull 2-3 workers, and his OC is using energy on mules, rather than the queen which has to use energy on spread creep. The Zerg then needs to not make drones and instead make slow lings (as speed won't finish fast enough), to combat marines, to get his expo, which he needs to spend his minerals.
If the Zerg screws up this balancing act, he either straight up loses, or is significantly behind. If he does it just fine, he is on equal terms, or maybe quazi slightly ahead of the Terran.
Now, obviously making 2 raxes, queuing up some marines, and making bunkers which are salvageable with 0 cost, while taking an unchallenged expo is EASIER to do for a Terran than it is for the Zerg to counter it, 2 rax IS NOT OVERPOWERED.
2) PvZ vs. ZvP Perspective on 3RS, or 5RR all-in, denied scouting:
The Zerg knows exactly what he's doing, he's done this build order before, and it's incredibly strong. It's quite possibly the strongest cheese in the game. Simply doing the build order isn't hard at all after you've done it say 7 times or so. (That's the 3RS). Vs. The 5RR all-in, where you've denied scouting by your first pair of lings, it's now standard to go gas pool anyways, so the lack of expo isn't a "Tell", and if the Protoss isn't prepared, he either loses or is incredibly behind. It's a whole lot easier for a Zerg to execute his Roach/Sling all-in or bust or even just the standard 5RR into an expand than it is for the Protoss to defend it. But Roach Rushes ARE NOT OVERPOWERED.
3) TvZ vs. ZvT Perspective on 2 base bling all-in:
The terran has a very hard time scouting a Zerg who is taking 2 bases simply to All-In the Terran with a huge baneling bust. Taking 2 bases, getting a baneling nest, upgrading speed, and getting decent sling numbers is actually rather standard, not to mention sling numbers can be hidden as they're soo mobile it hardly ruins the attack. Of course it's much easier to move click banelings into a base, run slings in, and win than it is for a Terran to both scout and prepare for a 2 base baneling all in. But: 2 Base Baneling Busts ARE NOT OVERPOWERED.
4) ZvP vs. PvZ Perspective on 4 gate all-in:
One of the hardest things for a Zerg to do before 5:00 is scout a Protoss base. a Protoss can grab a second gas early for some incredibly heavy tech play (Void Ray rush, DT Rush, Delayed Blink Stalker 4 gate), they could be doing a standard 3 gate sentry expand, or they could feign taking the 2nd gas so you can't steal it, kill or block your drone, and 4 gate you. Now obviously Void Ray, Delayed Blink Stalker 4 gate, and the 3 Gate Sentry expand have COMPLETELY different responses. So it's difficult to judge exactly what to do until you sacrifice the overlord. Thing is: A protoss 4 gating a Zerg puts everything in the Zerg's hands. Will he scout the proxy pylon? Will he build enough lings, or roaches, to match what composition the Protoss uses? Will he make the right amount of spine crawlers and or in the right area? Will he not get supply blocked or have Overlords in spots where they'll get sniped in a pivotal time? It's much harder for a Zerg to stop a Protoss 4 gate than it is for the Protoss to 4 gate. But: Protoss 4 gates ARE NOT OVERPOWERED.
There's 4 examples for you. Providing at least 1 example from each race that has a strategy which is easier to execute than it is to counter; however, they aren't overpowered.
|
Was a total mistake to publish this post.My aim was to realize that it's not worth complaining,but start using your own brain to find out how to turn problems into advantages.
Nvm..
|
Poland523 Posts
This topic is just theory, try to implemet your thinking into the normal game. I can make him waste ff but if he cuts my 10 roaches, I got back, then he cuts my next 10 roaches when I try to engage he has no more ff left but he is going to smash me anyway due to high food advantage. Theoretically I can say that mutalisks simply own siege tanks, however in practise it is very weak unit due to thors or marines.
|
On April 03 2011 23:49 Tsuycc wrote:
If you played warcraft3 then imbalance should be a clear concept in your head (especially if you were UD going up against an Orc)
Frost armor first lich. It wasnt that hard to me, felt like playing micro arena.
|
On April 04 2011 00:17 morimacil wrote:
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people.
It's true if both sides spent an equal amount of resources on both.
Machine Guns cost $$
Sticks are almost free if you walk around a park/forest/abandoned house
Which means if you can afford several hundred thousand sticks for every machine gun
Several hundred thousand people with sticks vs several hundred thousand people with 1 machine gun is very fair.
|
On April 04 2011 00:38 GG.NoRe wrote:
Author is either naive or knows nothing at all.
SC2 is not only about matching and countering your opponent. And the game dynamics flows all the time between opponents as offensive (someone who dictates the game) and defensive (and the player who scouts and reacts). The OP, for the information of the author, arises out of certain irregularities at certain levels as the game progresses. Just one example, QQ in ZvP mostly happen because of the inability of tier 3 zerg to deal with macroed maxed up P. This is not anymore about TOOLS, as you say it. There is really almost nothing efficient in the Z arsenal to counter the P deathball. This is the heart of every OP discussion - when the game reaches at point where chronologically and technologically both players should be equal or more or less so, but in practice are not!
This author should have saved all of us time and effort by posting his opening post in the Force Field analysis thread. Meh.
You tell him!
When protoss spends a lot of resources to have 40-60 supply of Colossus Voidrays and the Zerg player doesn't at least match that with 40-60 supply of corruptors, that that is totally because the game is imba!
It doesn't count unless I can mass zergling/muta EVERY game!
|
On April 04 2011 02:40 Jeffbelittle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 01:40 Holophonist wrote:On April 04 2011 01:29 Jeffbelittle wrote:
Balance isn't about difficulty to execute, it's about ability to execute.
If there is a counter to something, regardless of how much harder it is to counter than it is to execute, it's balanced. You're kidding, right? This is so absurd I'm not sure how to disprove it intelligently. If the counter to a bunker rush was just to run a 3 minute mile while doing a complex math problem and also reciting the entire works of Shakespeare? Would it still be balanced? Of course not. Want to take some examples? 1)ZvT vs. TvZ Perspective on 2 Rax Expand: The Zerg has to scout the 2 rax, get good creep spread going as fast as possible, get a spine crawler up in an optimal area, not overcommit by any means because if the marines don't come you're wicked down, check for bunkers, if there are bunkers, you need 4 workers to stop each bunker. Meanwhile a Terran only need to pull 2-3 workers, and his OC is using energy on mules, rather than the queen which has to use energy on spread creep. The Zerg then needs to not make drones and instead make slow lings (as speed won't finish fast enough), to combat marines, to get his expo, which he needs to spend his minerals. If the Zerg screws up this balancing act, he either straight up loses, or is significantly behind. If he does it just fine, he is on equal terms, or maybe quazi slightly ahead of the Terran. Now, obviously making 2 raxes, queuing up some marines, and making bunkers which are salvageable with 0 cost, while taking an unchallenged expo is EASIER to do for a Terran than it is for the Zerg to counter it, 2 rax IS NOT OVERPOWERED. 2) PvZ vs. ZvP Perspective on 3RS, or 5RR all-in, denied scouting: The Zerg knows exactly what he's doing, he's done this build order before, and it's incredibly strong. It's quite possibly the strongest cheese in the game. Simply doing the build order isn't hard at all after you've done it say 7 times or so. (That's the 3RS). Vs. The 5RR all-in, where you've denied scouting by your first pair of lings, it's now standard to go gas pool anyways, so the lack of expo isn't a "Tell", and if the Protoss isn't prepared, he either loses or is incredibly behind. It's a whole lot easier for a Zerg to execute his Roach/Sling all-in or bust or even just the standard 5RR into an expand than it is for the Protoss to defend it. But Roach Rushes ARE NOT OVERPOWERED. 3) TvZ vs. ZvT Perspective on 2 base bling all-in: The terran has a very hard time scouting a Zerg who is taking 2 bases simply to All-In the Terran with a huge baneling bust. Taking 2 bases, getting a baneling nest, upgrading speed, and getting decent sling numbers is actually rather standard, not to mention sling numbers can be hidden as they're soo mobile it hardly ruins the attack. Of course it's much easier to move click banelings into a base, run slings in, and win than it is for a Terran to both scout and prepare for a 2 base baneling all in. But: 2 Base Baneling Busts ARE NOT OVERPOWERED. 4) ZvP vs. PvZ Perspective on 4 gate all-in: One of the hardest things for a Zerg to do before 5:00 is scout a Protoss base. a Protoss can grab a second gas early for some incredibly heavy tech play (Void Ray rush, DT Rush, Delayed Blink Stalker 4 gate), they could be doing a standard 3 gate sentry expand, or they could feign taking the 2nd gas so you can't steal it, kill or block your drone, and 4 gate you. Now obviously Void Ray, Delayed Blink Stalker 4 gate, and the 3 Gate Sentry expand have COMPLETELY different responses. So it's difficult to judge exactly what to do until you sacrifice the overlord. Thing is: A protoss 4 gating a Zerg puts everything in the Zerg's hands. Will he scout the proxy pylon? Will he build enough lings, or roaches, to match what composition the Protoss uses? Will he make the right amount of spine crawlers and or in the right area? Will he not get supply blocked or have Overlords in spots where they'll get sniped in a pivotal time? It's much harder for a Zerg to stop a Protoss 4 gate than it is for the Protoss to 4 gate. But: Protoss 4 gates ARE NOT OVERPOWERED. There's 4 examples for you. Providing at least 1 example from each race that has a strategy which is easier to execute than it is to counter; however, they aren't overpowered.
Aside from the fact that this post has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH YOUR RIDICULOUS ASSERTION that just because there is SOMETHING that beats *it*, that means *it* isn't overpowered... the only options you listed for zergs are all-ins. So if we 5rr all-in and it doesn't work, we lose. If we 2 base bling all-in and it doesn't work, we lose. If a terran bunker rushes and it doesn't work, he's fine. If the bunker rush does work, he wins the game.
Look, just admit that what you said is completely ridiculous. Let me remind you of your own words: "If there is a counter to something, regardless of how much harder it is to counter than it is to execute, it's balanced."
Do you still think that's true?
*EDIT*
Forget it, I'm done with this thread before I get banned : /
|
can someone tell WTF this is doing in strategy section? And what the use of this thread us, apart from feeding trolls? Ffs if you have nothing intelligent to say, just don't say anything.
The purge us coming, thank god (aka zatic :-D )
|
Crying about imbalance allows players to blame losses on something or someone other than themselves. And no one wants to admit that the other player was simply better.
That said, lolp
|
I think the whole topic of OP is pointless. If you lose 75% of the time vs a certain matchup on a certain map, work at making it 65%. Maybe it is OP and you will never be able to have a winning percentage. Doesn't mean you can't improve, and I guarantee there are certain matchups and maps where you have a favorable edge.
|
To a great extent, I absolutely believe what I said is true, and I'm not taking too kindly to how you're reacting. Your posts are based more on defaming people posting valuable things to this discussion than being constructive.
What I said is a direct quote from Artosis on his Imbalanced show. He was talking on the topic of the Protoss vs. Zerg Protoss Death Ball and he stated that simply because it may be very hard to counter something, doesn't make the thing Imbalanced. And I agreed with Artosis, someone who knows more about Starcraft 2 than both of us combined.
Of course if you have to hit perfect injects, get the exact x amount of one unit and exact y amount of another units to stop a sloppily done strategy, there's something that needs to be looked into. I wasn't saying it to the EXTREME that you're testing it to: Aka "if there's any little thing in the world to stop it, it instantly isn't overpowered anymore" Or as you "eloquently" put it: If the only counter to a bunker rush was running a 3 minute mile, reciting shakespeare's works, and doing complex math at the same time, you're right. That's imbalanced. But that's taking it far too extreme than any real Starcraft 2 Example. Which is why I listed examples in the first place. I listed builds that people can get frustrated losing to (hell I got so frustrated with the 2 Rax I switched races heehee ^^) because it's easier it execute than it is to defend and yet they aren't overpowered.
Now if you want to continue this debate in a mature manner, do it with me via PM, as this thread shouldn't be derailed by air-headedness.
|
Have you ever played as zerg against a good protoss utilizing forcefields to thier true potential? It's honestly the scariest thing I come across as a zerg.
|
Always when I encounter something that makes me want to scream OP, I calm myself down and try to think of a way around the problem. Sometimes the solution is obvious, sometimes very subtle, sometimes wierd and others it just is not invented yet.
Its alot easier to assume that the game is balanced and it is up to me to figure out a way around it,
than it is trying to get blizzard to fix the thing I experience as imbalanced.
|
On April 04 2011 00:25 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:22 Abigail wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2011 00:17 loveeholicce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:10 Abigail wrote:On April 04 2011 00:07 iChau wrote:On April 03 2011 23:56 lorkac wrote:
The reason the concept of OP is easy to toss about in an RTS is because people forget that strategies are won and lost long before the gg.
In turn based strategies, both players can see when the game is "over" long before the last push. You simply see your pieces in the positions they are in and you can see that you just can't win.
However, in an RTS, people always feel as if they could have fixed something if they were simply faster, physically faster. They forget that "overall strategies" are just as effective in a turn based game as they are in a RTS and the winning position can be gained very easily long before the GG if you have superior strategy. Yeah, such as in PvP. Blink stalkers vs Colossi play. Colossi are dominant in that match-up because once you have more colossi (or the opponent has none) you can simply push for the win. However, the blink stalker user's goal is to catch the colossi deathball out of position, and force a base trade where the blink stalker user will win because his bases are more spread-out and he is more mobile than the slow colossi. This is a great example of overall strategy imo: Go blink stalkers if the other user goes colossi, catch him off-guard, base race, and win. Zerg can do the same thing. I faced a zerg who smartly did this (and Mr. Bitter is encouraging this type of play) by just attacking at multiple bases at once in Shakuras Plateau. Since the 3rd (near the tower) and the 4th (above or below your natural) is quite spread-out, you can abuse the immobility of the death-ball with mass roaches (mondragon style) or mass lings. Overall strategy: If protoss goes into the inevitable deathball, attack at multiple spots and snipe down nexii, strengthen your economy while destroying your opponent's, and win. Which is the exact response to how to counter a deathball.THe deathball is slow,so just abuse it's low mobility,and try to brake through many spots simultaneously. And this tactic comes by an analisys of the deathball flaws,not from complaining =) You know, that gets said a lot but its really not that slow. And Zerg's roach / hydra army isn't noticably faster. Gets worse for Zerg with the ability to warp in units, which compensates for the slightly reduced mobility of a protoss army anyway. Yes mass lings are fast but theyre also fairly eay to deal with unless you blunder your cannon / pylon placement You forget that a human being is controlling an army.Attacking in 4 different directions,makes it TONS more difficult for someone to defend,if he has one army. You send a bunch of units and press A,and suddenly your opponent goes into a chaotic and uncoordinated mode,which you can take advantage of.Toss can warp in,true.But he cant control simultaneoous attacks so easily,while you,as attacker,assuming that you only press A and attack in 2 different spots,while nuking and controlling only one core army in the middle,have the mind control necessary,which your opponent hasnt. Yep, not everyone is AdelScott or LiquidTyler. Even they can't properly deflect multiple attacks. Warping in units can only take you so far because you can only warp in 6-10 units at a time (off 3 bases) to defend. Zerg has tremendous numbers, so 50 speedlings (only 25 supply...) can attack the 3rd, roaches can sneak into the main to snipe off critical tech buildings, etc. It's not that hard to select a group of units and right clicking on an object, but having a calm mindset and defending every single attack is incredibly difficult.
how are you gonna attack 4 fronts at the same time? No single attack is gonna be large enough to actually kill 3 cannons and a meaningful number of probes before it gets cleaned up. You're spreading yourself so thin that 3 cannons and 1 round of warp in will basically shut down the attack completely. That's if there are even 4 seperate places to attack, aka 4 bases. At that point the max army has kicked in and zerg has way bigger problems. Yes you can be annoying and run small groups of units everywhere but it doesn't change the fact that theres a gigantic army you eventually have to face.
|
On April 04 2011 00:56 iChau wrote:
Zerg will always win a base-trade if it comes to it. If the protoss is incapable of defending and tries to all-in, the zerg just needs to sneak his army away and there goes the base trade. Zerg wins (more bases, more everything, including current multi-pronged attacks).
No, zerg is going to lose a basetrade every time. A max zerg army needs to be able to instantly reinforce. MAx protoss doesn;t. If both players lose their production buildings toss is going to be too strong. Popping a bunch of hatcheries on expos around the map won't do much if there aren't 4 queens readily available to inject
|
mmm, what bothers me is that you say we should try and bait his ff, then with that he traps a good portion of my army as it retreats, thus losing a whole bit of my army for what.. ? Using his energy up? NOT a good trade-off. : /
|
FF is not overpowered because sentries cost 100 gas. This significantly delays Protoss tech, which noone would argue, is needed in PvT and PvZ. So, yes you have FF, but your tech is late and you are frequently fighting off better units than yours. IMO, if you delay your tech with 100 gas a sentry, there better be a good payoff, and some players believe that FF is a decent trade. It's not OP though.
|
On April 04 2011 00:17 morimacil wrote:
Aye, its true. For example, if you have a war, and one side has sticks, and the other side has machine guns, then you can make the same claim, they are just tools, so no side has any inherent advantage.
machine guns have ammo, so eventually they run out
machine guns can miss due to human error
machine guns are slightly less effective when used in close range.
and so on. Even when comparing machine guns to sticks, you can make the argument that every tool is unique, and has its weaknesses.
Therefore, a war between a faction with machine guns, and another one armed with just sticks is completely balanced, because even machine guns are not OP when compared to sticks, after all, they will run out of bullets after having killed a couple hundred of people.
not sure what to say about this... the side with the machine gun still has the advantage, and machine guns are more accurate at close range than at far, even with human error, the guy has a machine gun, sticks can break easily and you can still bash people's face with a machine gun, so if you were to fight a machine gun with a stick you will pretty much lose unless they run out of ammo and think that you can't use the gun itself as a blunt melee weapon.
what is op for someone might not seem op to another, its up to blizzard to decide, and if its change it is most likely in need for a balance. people that play toss say its balanced people playing terran or zerg say its OP, so what do people who play random say?
|
On April 04 2011 00:16 tendence wrote:
I think, the reason why I sometimes think to myself, that P is too strong and Z too weak, because I have the feeling, that I in order to win against P, it takes me so much more effort, than for him to win against me.
1 little screw up or bad scouting, and you're dead. The other races, esp. Toss, are allowed to screw up a couple of times, and can still win, imho. Of course only, if the players are on equal skill level.
I think thats the big problem. Playing Zerg is quite difficult and requires a lot of thinking outside of the box, as you said. I don't really think that there is a big balance issue though.
There are tons of examples where if a Protoss makes one mistake hes dead, speedlings can end a game so quickly its not even funny, and if you don't forcefield right you'll lose all your probes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
