|
Hi guyz.
Everyday,when we sit on sc2,we consantly hear/read someone talking about OP.This is OP,that is OP,one race is OP,the other is OP,and so on.At least this happens to me all the time,even on ladder(diamond),where players are supposed to have some iron skin on the game concepts.
Well,i've been thinking about it,because sometimes i wander as well about some things in the game,which appear to be unstoppable.
The point i would like to make all think about is:why?Why is this/that so powerful?Why does the OP concept pop out?
Let's start with this simple question.What is sc2?
It is a war simulation,where teams with equal number of players(1v1,2v2,3v3 and so on) face each other,in order to archieve victory,by defeating your opponent/s.I think this is the best way to define this game.
My next examples will be for a 1v1 match,for simplicity.
How do we reach that goal?
By making choices.We analize our opponents race/map at first,then we keep on starving to get more and more clues on what his battle plan is,and react as best as we can.We use all of the experience/knowledge we have,and follow as best as we can the game course,in order to find a way to defeat our opponent.
How do we proceed when we face an opponent?
We choose the most appropriate strategy to defeat him.By our analysis,we decide that one thing is better then another,and we use it.If we are wrong,we try to find out why.But the key concept i would like to point out is that we use TOOLS.By tools,i mean everything useful we bring in,to be able to overwhelm the enemy.It may sound bad,but all we do is decide which tool is best to be able to win the game.Simple.
And consequently we all know which tools every race has in his arsenal.
What we don't usually think about,or at least this is my conclusion,is how every single tool works.
As a toss player,many times in ladder people tell me ''FF is so imba/storm is so imba'' and so on.So let's assume,for one moment,that you think that protoss race is imba.
Why?Because you assume that his tools are superior then yours.They are more powerful,they are impossible to counter:they are simply an easy way to win,which requires no skill.Why?Because you assume they are superior,and yours are inferior.
Let's pick up an example.Forcefields.Many people cry out how imba they are.Let's check out how do they work.
FF is an ability used by protoss's sentry unit,which is a gateway one.It costs 50m and 100g.This ability costs 50 mana,and affects a small area,preventing any ground unit(except gigantic ones)from stepping on it.We all know that.
Let's read again what i wrote,and try to find out the weak spots.
1)100gas,2)50 mana,3)small area 4)they are used by the player.Those are my clues.
1)100 gas is not cheap.Having 5 sentries is 500gas.So we know that when our opponent has a sentry heavy unit compo,he is a little poor on other gas heavy units.Interesting.
2)50 mana.Sentries have 200 mana pool,which is 4 FF.With 5 sentries,toss has a potential of 20 FF.The interesting part is:when they are out of mana,they have no FFs left.Interesting.
3)FF affects a small area.So in wider areas,many FFs are required,to cover the same portion of ground.
4)The player decides how to use them/if he wants to.So everytime there is a human influence on something,comes the skill element.And by extension,the mistake element.
What is our final response?How to counter those imba forcefields?
Maybe we should let the protoss waste his mana.Or engange him in open and wide areas.Or make him waste mana,and attack at the right moment.
What we can do,is force the opponent to waste/use poorly his tools,or preventing him from using them.
This is it.
Every single tool we use in the game,is unique.And has flaws and strenghts,depending on its usage.So try to find out how every single opponents tool works,find its weaknesses,and exploit them.There is no perfect tool in this game.Every race has his own,and they are all powerful,and weak at the same time.
I don't know if i'm right,i just wanted to try to give my own contribution to the ''OP'' topic,which is so actual in the sc2 scene.
Hope it's worth reading.
Thanks.
Best regards.
|
If you played warcraft3 then imbalance should be a clear concept in your head (especially if you were UD going up against an Orc)
|
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.
|
Thank you, it's refreshing to see a post that was constructed with such depth and clarity. :D
As a low tier player, I very much appreciate your analysis, it certainly gives me a bit more confidence when I see the dreaded snow globes. :D
|
On April 03 2011 23:56 babarossa wrote:
Thank you, it's refreshing to see a post that was constructed with such depth and clarity. :D
As a low tier player, I very much appreciate your analysis, it certainly gives me a bit more confidence when I see the dreaded snow globes. :D
I am as well nothing special in the sc2 world,i just thought it would be nice to tell what i think about it =)
|
Hey, your post would be way easier to read if you put spaces after punctuation marks.
On topic, i think you're right, instead of yelling imba, more effort should be spent trying to think outside the box!
|
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.
|
Pretty sure this violates a rule; however, I'll text the thoughts in case it stays up 
Generally speaking: platinum+ players call imbalance when they put an incredible amount of effort into fighting their opponent; however, their efforts are mitigated by "X"
For instance: you make a huge MM army; however, 3/4 Colossi and some good Forcefields may win the fight.
So now: The Terran makes a thread how Forcefields and Colossi are OP in battle.net, don't provide a replay, and the idea becomes viral.
|
On April 04 2011 00:07 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +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 =)
|
On April 04 2011 00:09 Jeffbelittle wrote:Pretty sure this violates a rule; however, I'll text the thoughts in case it stays up Generally speaking: platinum+ players call imbalance when they put an incredible amount of effort into fighting their opponent; however, their efforts are mitigated by "X" For instance: you make a huge MM army; however, 3/4 Colossi and some good Forcefields may win the fight. So now: The Terran makes a thread how Forcefields and Colossi are OP in battle.net, don't provide a replay, and the idea becomes viral.
I think talking in a costructive way about something isnt a violation,always imho.
Im trying to find out why is the OP concept around,that's all.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On April 04 2011 00:10 Abigail wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
+ 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.
|
It's rreeeaaaally not this complicated. Some things are overpowered. When you have to be considerably better than your opponent to win, he's probably doing something that's overpowered.
Take this hyperbole as an example: If roaches could shoot up and had 1000 hp, it would be OP. Considering all the different strategies and units in the game, it's unreasonable to think that nothing in the game is OP.
|
+ Show Spoiler +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.
This is absolutely false,because you assume that one race has only one tool available.Every race has tons of possibilities,and tons of way to play the same game.
What are you trying to say?Zerg has sticks and toss has guns?Sounds absolutely absurd to me.
|
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.
|
I really don't think this is anything new, I think most of the people know what you just wrote...
The more experienced players(=pros) complain about units/tools that have more strenghts than weaknesses or weaknesses that you can't exploit with the current possibilities.
You use the forcefield as example: "make him waste mana and engage in wide areas" may seem a good counter in theory but everyone knows that this won't work in practice(it's basically the same as the "Ultimate Z FF counter = running away?"- thread).
Also there are other things that are/were considered as "OP"(roaches, reapers, tanks, KA) and unfortunately they are/were no tools that your opponents can "waste" or you can run away from but units you have/had to engage(finding a weakness of mass roaches/5rax reaper might be a little bit difficult, considering the possibilities the races had to counter these "tools")!
First of all, I think this thread is in the wrong section and secondly people already have so many chances to cry about what they think is imbalanced on TL.net. I don't think you need another thread that will end in a huge whining about this oh so imbalanced game....
|
On April 04 2011 00:24 Abigail wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. This is absolutely false,because you assume that one race has only one tool available.Every race has tons of possibilities,and tons of way to play the same game. What are you trying to say?Zerg has sticks and toss has guns?Sounds absolutely absurd to me.
Its just looking at 1 tool, machine guns in my example, and seeing how it has a weakness compared to sticks (eventuqally running out of ammo). Just like the OP is looking at 1 tool, forcefields, and analyzing a weakness, the fact that after 20 forcefields, the sentries will be oom.
I didnt mention zergs, or protoss, you are the one bringing them up.
Im just agreeing with the OP, that every single tool has a weakness.
I however dont agree that jus because something has a weakness, that makes it balanced, sometimes that weakness is not really a big enough weakness compared to the other tools available.
|
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.
Wait. Are you trying to claim that in this scenario, machine guns aren't OP because they'll run out of bullets once everybody on the other side is dead?? So you're assuming that the stick army has more guys to throw away? What about an army of equal size one with sticks and the other with machine guns?
|
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.
|
On April 04 2011 00:22 Abigail wrote:
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.
In other words, play significantly better than your opponent, to win?
Besides which, by the time zerg has enough units to threaten multiple points at once, or the protoss is spread out enough, it's already too late.
|
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.
Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers.
|
On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +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. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers.
But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army!
|
The current discussion about zvp comes back to the "playing significantly better than your opponent in order to win" mindset. Yes, you can harass everywhere while reinforcing your main army just enough to BARELY hold against his resulting all-in (after your harass). But that means you have to send the perfect amount of, say, roaches to his 3rd to do dmg there and the perfect amount of, say lings to his nat to do dmg there while keeping the perfect amount of roach/hydra with your main army so he can't just say "F it, I'll just go kill him."
That is a perfect example of way out playing your opponent just to win a standard game.
|
On April 04 2011 00:52 Holophonist wrote:
The current discussion about zvp comes back to the "playing significantly better than your opponent in order to win" mindset. Yes, you can harass everywhere while reinforcing your main army just enough to BARELY hold against his resulting all-in (after your harass). But that means you have to send the perfect amount of, say, roaches to his 3rd to do dmg there and the perfect amount of, say lings to his nat to do dmg there while keeping the perfect amount of roach/hydra with your main army so he can't just say "F it, I'll just go kill him."
That is a perfect example of way out playing your opponent just to win a standard game.
There's no perfect numbers. Honestly, what are you talking about. Okay sure, I'll send exactly 19 lings to attack here because he only has 3 cannons. Oh yes, I'll also drop with exactly 3 overlords 26 roaches here according to my scouts. Oh wait, I'll send 5 mutalisks here because he has exactly 1 cannon.
It's harder to DEFEND multi-pronged attacks than it is to ATTACK with multi-pronged attacks. This is well-known.
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).
It's not like you know exact numbers and that you're able to calculate every single step, you won't be able to defend if the protoss decides to all-in with the deathball. If he doesn't, you starve him to death.
So basically, I wouldn't call it outplaying because defending is harder than attacking.
On April 04 2011 00:48 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote: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. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers. But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army!
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).
|
1)100 gas is not cheap.Having 5 sentries is 500gas.So we know that when our opponent has a sentry heavy unit compo,he is a little poor on other gas heavy units.Interesting.
Would be true if protoss wasn't able to expand with 1 zealot and 5 sentry safely.
Sentry is the only thing you will spend your gas before taking an expand in most scenario.
Sentry almost never cut in your high tehc unit produce rate if you don't lose them early.
And forcefields are not small.. each is the size of an Ultralisk, and everyone will tell you Ultra are fucking huge.
|
On April 04 2011 00:56 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:52 Holophonist wrote:
The current discussion about zvp comes back to the "playing significantly better than your opponent in order to win" mindset. Yes, you can harass everywhere while reinforcing your main army just enough to BARELY hold against his resulting all-in (after your harass). But that means you have to send the perfect amount of, say, roaches to his 3rd to do dmg there and the perfect amount of, say lings to his nat to do dmg there while keeping the perfect amount of roach/hydra with your main army so he can't just say "F it, I'll just go kill him."
That is a perfect example of way out playing your opponent just to win a standard game. There's no perfect numbers. Honestly, what are you talking about. Okay sure, I'll send exactly 19 lings to attack here because he only has 3 cannons. Oh yes, I'll also drop with exactly 3 overlords 26 roaches here according to my scouts. Oh wait, I'll send 5 mutalisks here because he has exactly 1 cannon. It's harder to DEFEND multi-pronged attacks than it is to ATTACK with multi-pronged attacks. This is well-known. 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). It's not like you know exact numbers and that you're able to calculate every single step, you won't be able to defend if the protoss decides to all-in with the deathball. If he doesn't, you starve him to death. So basically, I wouldn't call it outplaying because defending is harder than attacking. Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:48 Dragar wrote:On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote: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. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers. But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army! 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).
No...
Zerg loses supply in queens, usually in drones (not always).
Secondly, due to the need to overproduce corruptors to stand a chance against collosi, there is at least equal (if not more supply) in corruptors compared to collosi. Four collosi need at least 12 corruptors or the ground army melts far too fast.
Finally, stalkers/sentries and roaches/hydras are usually in similar number.
If there are void rays it gets even worse, as the only way to handle that is to produce massive amounts of corruptors and remax on roaches.
|
On April 04 2011 00:56 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:52 Holophonist wrote:
The current discussion about zvp comes back to the "playing significantly better than your opponent in order to win" mindset. Yes, you can harass everywhere while reinforcing your main army just enough to BARELY hold against his resulting all-in (after your harass). But that means you have to send the perfect amount of, say, roaches to his 3rd to do dmg there and the perfect amount of, say lings to his nat to do dmg there while keeping the perfect amount of roach/hydra with your main army so he can't just say "F it, I'll just go kill him."
That is a perfect example of way out playing your opponent just to win a standard game. There's no perfect numbers. Honestly, what are you talking about. Okay sure, I'll send exactly 19 lings to attack here because he only has 3 cannons. Oh yes, I'll also drop with exactly 3 overlords 26 roaches here according to my scouts. Oh wait, I'll send 5 mutalisks here because he has exactly 1 cannon. It's harder to DEFEND multi-pronged attacks than it is to ATTACK with multi-pronged attacks. This is well-known. 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). It's not like you know exact numbers and that you're able to calculate every single step, you won't be able to defend if the protoss decides to all-in with the deathball. If he doesn't, you starve him to death. So basically, I wouldn't call it outplaying because defending is harder than attacking. Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:48 Dragar wrote:On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote: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. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers. But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army! 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).
Yeah it's easier to do a multi-pronged attack than to defend a multi-pronged attack. I'm not talking about defending it. I'm talking about them just going and killing you. And it's not a straight up base trade because you don't have your whole army in his base. He can warp in some key units at home like sentries just to survive while his main army destroys you. And if you have to.... sneak out(??) and go kill his main while he's killing yours, you're gonna lose the base trade because he's already at your front door and you have to go walk to his... that's assuming you're even able to.... sneak out(??) away from his army.
And the zerg army is smaller because the difference in supply is drones usually. Look at the army tab to look at the min/resource count of the armies.
|
Frankly I don't know how anyone can think roach/hydra/corruptor can possibly work, when MMM+viking are far, far better units and trades fairly evenly with the Protoss composition, not to mention being far better at multi harass than zerg armies.
|
Horrible analysis in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but gas 500 is a small price for 5 units which have the ability to completely destroy 1/3 of your army, and block the other 2/3 because they cant move past the force fields. I've even seen force fields done by very competent protoss where it not only cuts the army in half, but are so well placed that the front attacking half isnt even in range. Hell if this kind of unit existed for zerg I would be getting it every game. There really isn't an equivalent unit for zerg, that if you spend 500 gas on it will demolish an army so utterly like force fields.
The question of whether or not FF are OP is another question however. I dont have so much problems with it because I just get baneling drops and it works every time. Maybe we just have to find solutions for it. But I do feel that zergs are having a much tougher time thinking of counters.
TL;DR
- 500 gas is a small price to pay for 5 units which can utterly destroy your army by mutilating 1/3 and blocking the other 2/3 from even attacking
|
Protoss does win in base trades.
|
in my opinion (that counts for absolutely nothing considering my posting history) if you think protos is so overpowered switch to protoss. i've done it. then i got crushed by terran .... so i switched.... then i got crushed .... you get the point.
i think there are so many protoss because a lot of people think they're overpowered and so they switch to protoss.
also if you think colossi are overpowered just go kill him before he gets em.
as day9 said "what's the best counter against x ?" - "just go kill him".
|
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.
But as Artosis and IdrA have explicitly said: The professionals are stumped on how to counter the Protoss Death Ball. But yet they still haven't called it Imbalanced yet, they're still holding out on an explored tactic.
|
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.
Lol, you made me laugh so hard.
On topic: I don't believe in imbalances that much (despite crying and whining in gosugamers in every single possible opportunity), i think that things need to be figured out to have a perfectly balanced game, just like in SC1. But that process works much slower for abilities that constrict opponent's micro.
|
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.
|
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.
LOL at people who are taking this literally. OMG are you saying that if 100 people with machine guns went against 100 people with sticks its balanced? OMG noob. This actually brings up a very good point, morimacil compared machine guns to sticks exactly how the OP compared FF to the zerg army. Just because one thing has weakness doesn't mean it balances the game. To take an extreme example, if broodlords did 200 damage, its like if I said well they cant attack air and they are damn expensive, so they arent OP.
|
yeah... I thought he was serious. Then somebody PM'd and was like... are you an idiot? He was being sarcastic.
|
MLG.
+ Show Spoiler +Sheth did a drop against Huk in one of the games casted at MLG. Huk sends blink stalkers back to deal with drop, and collosi and sentries stop the assault at his third base. Then Huk attacks and wins.
|
I thought that whining about balance/ theorycrafting wasn't allowed anymore....
|
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..
|
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.
|
On April 04 2011 04:12 primebeef wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah, but its possible for the guys with the sticks to get a macro advantage, and thus have way more guys, and then fight guerrila tactics, splitting up the slow guys with machine guns, and jumping at them out of the bushes to kill them one at a time, run them out of ammo by sacrificing tons of guys, and running around hoping they will fire and miss, and so on.
I think the point thats being made here, is that machine guns clearly have weaknesses, as do sticks. Thus, it is balanced.
Plus, it is possible for guys with sticks to beat guys with machine guns, so that also means that machine guns are not overpowered compared to sticks.
No matter how many hoops you have to jump through, or how incredibly harder it is to kill guys with machine guns using guys with sticks, apparently, if its possible to do it, then its balanced, and machine guns are not overpowered compared to sticks.
And then we can also cite example, such as the Battle of Isandlwana where people with sticks defeated people with guns.
I think thats the points that are being argued here, no?
point1: it has a weakness, so that makes it balanced.
Clearly, machine guns have weaknesses, so even compared to sticks, they are balanced.
point2: If its possible to be defeated, no matter how hard it is to defeat, its balanced.
Clearly, people with sticks can defeat guys with machine guns. So in that reguard, machine guns vs sticks are also perfectly balanced.
I think the guys with sticks should just abuse their mobility some more. Maybe using nydus worms!
|
I wouldn't say that your argument disproves imbalance so much as it demonstrates that people focus far too much on the strengths of something when declaring imbalance, and don't bother spending enough time determining that particular "imbalance's" weaknesses and developing counters. Of course, your type of argument is where the "wait for the metagame" battlecry is heard, where players refuse to admit that ANYTHING is overpowered, and insist that the programmers of the game hid a magical counter to this not-imba mechanic somewhere in the game like some sort of Easter Egg that the community just has to find.
The fact that there are patches made to the game is evidence that there is imbalance in the game. If it weren't broken. Blizzard wouldn't have gone and fixed it. However, you are right in pointing out that 'imba' shouldn't be the first word out of our mouths every time we lose to something. Instead, we need to look at the entirety of the game, across every matchup, every player, and every skill level, with analysis so in-depth that it puts astrophysicists to shame, before we can confidently label something as overpowered or just simply not countered yet.
Ultimately, the failure of a player who calls 'imba' with every loss isn't that he can't defend against a certain mechanic, but that he can't be bothered to analyze the situation and adapt his play accordingly. We're already three game-changing major patches into the game, and that's after months of beta. If there were some aspect of the game that was so imbalanced as to break the game, it would have been found and fixed ages ago.
|
I was initially just going to pass by this post and pass it off as another "saying things are OP is dumb" thread. And I still think it is. But since I can see your clear effort in making this post I'm going to take it seriously and give you my honest opinion about what you have to say.
I'm honestly not seeing the significance of the word "tools." It seems to me like you have an emphasis on the word "tool," as if your point is to say "forcefield is a tool and therefore is no OP." Sure, both races can have tools. I feel like the only real valuable point that can be withdrawn from this is that there is a limit on the use of these "tools," but even then, the word "resources" would be much more appropriate and would get your point across much more clearly.
Onto another point, though, just the idea that the forcefield is one of many tools does not mean that it doesn't put protoss on a point of imbalance. Suppose there were two terran players and one of which was given forcefields. Would that be balanced? Of course not. Even though forcefield is one of many tools can't lead to any sort of conclusion regarding the balance between the two races, even though there is a limit on how the forcefield can be used.
Furthermore, you might say that since each race has different tools, but an equal number of tools, that the tools balance each other out. But that can't be true either. Suppose for race A all of the tools provided only allow players to move buildings, while for race B players are allowed to do all sorts of fancy things like Blink, Charge, MULE, etc...
It's not the fact that each race has their own tools or how many tools each race has or that each tool has a limit on its use that makes something balanced. It is the concept of the tool and what the tool allows the player to do. Forcefields very well may be imbalanced even though sentries require mana and that they require good placement.
When I write this post, I'm not saying that anything is imbalanced and I don't encourage saying that something is imbalanced in general. My only purpose in this post was to tell you what I thought about the argument you were trying to make.
|
I only think forcefields are OP since u can spam them and no real skill.... but im not a game designer for a reason. i think people need to play more instead of making OP threads etc
|
On April 04 2011 05:56 OPSavioR wrote:
I only think forcefields are OP since u can spam them and no real skill.... but im not a game designer for a reason. i think people need to play more instead of making OP threads etc
Yeah, we can spam it all over the place and STILL kill everything.. Yeah. "No real skill". Boy, you're in denial.
|
We saw how effective FF can be even against even a roach burrow+claws timing attack (Idra vs Kiwi series)
I won't mention any more than the GSL finals with MC... yeah...
Just saying, its just one of those things where if you're not 100% prepared for it and on top of your game, you'll lose outright, while the opponent can just think "eh i'll try it this game"
|
On April 04 2011 05:32 Trobot wrote:
I wouldn't say that your argument disproves imbalance so much as it demonstrates that people focus far too much on the strengths of something when declaring imbalance, and don't bother spending enough time determining that particular "imbalance's" weaknesses and developing counters. Of course, your type of argument is where the "wait for the metagame" battlecry is heard, where players refuse to admit that ANYTHING is overpowered, and insist that the programmers of the game hid a magical counter to this not-imba mechanic somewhere in the game like some sort of Easter Egg that the community just has to find.
The fact that there are patches made to the game is evidence that there is imbalance in the game. If it weren't broken. Blizzard wouldn't have gone and fixed it. However, you are right in pointing out that 'imba' shouldn't be the first word out of our mouths every time we lose to something. Instead, we need to look at the entirety of the game, across every matchup, every player, and every skill level, with analysis so in-depth that it puts astrophysicists to shame, before we can confidently label something as overpowered or just simply not countered yet.
Ultimately, the failure of a player who calls 'imba' with every loss isn't that he can't defend against a certain mechanic, but that he can't be bothered to analyze the situation and adapt his play accordingly. We're already three game-changing major patches into the game, and that's after months of beta. If there were some aspect of the game that was so imbalanced as to break the game, it would have been found and fixed ages ago.
this isn't the case actually, majority of the imbalances and FotM "unbeatable" builds come from the shift of metagame.
|
On April 04 2011 00:48 Dragar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 00:46 iChau wrote:On April 04 2011 00:38 GG.NoRe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. Go ask bitter. The tools are basically strategies, and this is a RTS game. It's not like you ALWAYS finish the game in one push. You harass as a zerg, you attack everywhere, and why do you do this? You have superior numbers. But Zerg doesn't! It has a smaller army!
I totally disagree with the original post in this thread and you're post. Along with so many others.
-If a zerg doesn't scout and lets their opponent get a 50 supply advantage, its a failure on the zerg player. This actually applys to any race. But zerg? A scout and thrash, prod and exploit, attack and move-not attackmove-race.. Superior numbers? No. Superior tactics.
Imba exists but probably in ways most players don't know about or understand. The game has been out for a year and the world imbalanced has been used over one trillion times. A few things have been heavily patched to fix a imbalance or a severely perceived imbalance but the majority of the claims that there was nothing that could have been done are just T_T
And as for the machine guns vs sticks argument- ask the proud Zulu people how spears, shields and larger forces faired against matchlock and cannon. Your example has a glaring flaw: Its completely ignorant.
|
just another "this game is perfect" thread
we see this since the start of the game and Im pretty sure noone wants 1supply roaches back, but bak when roaches were nerfed... a lot of players cried
|
Not a strategy thread. Repost this in general if you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
