| Forum Index > Closed |
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 10 2011 09:17 Whitewing wrote: Don't worry about it guys, in HotS, you can just steal the bunker from the 2 rax-ing terran. pretty sure that's SP only  | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On May 10 2011 08:13 aksfjh wrote: With the exception of close spawn 4 player maps, a great deal of these "tiny" maps are gone. I'm not really sure what the point is with xel'naga towers. In most cases, they give players with the ability to take map control an easier job taking map control. Well, map balance is not just about rush distances. I made a thread a while ago in that I feel that not many experimentation is going on with the maps(and really, while Blizzard can experiment this is more something the community should do) as he said the concept of Xel Naga Towers and many many features are not being played around with too much. And I do feel that in many maps the Xel Naga towers give too much vision. | ||
|
Mataza
Germany5364 Posts
Really the point of Idra was that zerg don´t have a safe build. As was already said greedy>safe>aggressive>greedy. But Zerg can´t do a safe build against an aggressive one. They have to do an aggressive build also(building a metric frickton of units). And at that point the T/P can go back to a safe build(wall-in, bunker, Sentries) rendering the units that were build by zerg useless. Defending for Zerg is really hard because Spines can´t be made reactionary and later on they lack lurkers to hold chokepoints. Building lurkers freed up larva tto make drones and lurker expand was kinda like siege tank expand. The replacement for that are banelings and roaches which both don´t do very well in defense until you get burrow. The other option, spines, take too long to build to be of any use either. Take for example the 7 rax allin, which pretty much looks like a 2 rax pressure into expand until you see him having more than 8 marines. You want 1 or 2 spines vs 2 rax pressure and 5+ against a 7rax. In this example, what Idra asks for is either a way to find the 5 dirty hidden raxes in T´s main without crippling himself or a way to defend it after he sees the marines coming down the ramp. Right now the only option is to make a lot of units anyway, which will put him behind a 2rax expand(making the fast expand useless). | ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 10 2011 09:57 Dental Floss wrote: If they reduce the build time of a spine-crawler it wouldn't have to ruin ZvZ. You just increase the vision of a hatchery by 1 hex to make them worse as proxy buildings. It's not the vision which makes the difference, most good players (read: players who have lost to spine rushes) will check the boundaries of their base if they're suspicious. | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
On May 10 2011 04:55 TreDawg wrote: Since creep tumors already fulfill the role of the creep colony I think it would be a waste. Especially since you would have to sacrifice a drone to make a building that you may or may not use. I still don't see how the Spanishiwa build doesn't count as an all purpose defensive build. cuz it's so defensive that you'll loose to a strong macrogame of your opponent... It's also unable to apply pressure and without speedlings, scouting and map-presence is almost zero.... | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
It also wouldn't allow Zerg to just have spine crawlers chasing armies around on creep. Like siege tanks, they'd be vulnerable both going into and getting out of their attacking stance, rather than just sided on one and not the other. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
On May 10 2011 10:20 Staboteur wrote: I'd like it if Spine Crawlers' burrow/unburrow time was frontloaded. Where now it takes 12 seconds to burrow, but unburrows instantly, I'd like it if it took 10 seconds to unburrow, and 2 seconds to burrow (or any suitable variation). This way you'd be able to reposition spine crawlers for specific threats by either unburrowing them in time or having them unburrowed pre-emptively, AND it wouldn't screw up ZvZ because there would be either the current 50 second build time, or a hatch-cancel spine crawler, which is both a heavy investment and -still- allows the defending zerg a 60 second defenders advantage. It also wouldn't allow Zerg to just have spine crawlers chasing armies around on creep. Like siege tanks, they'd be vulnerable both going into and getting out of their attacking stance, rather than just sided on one and not the other. In that case, I'd always keep them uprooted hidden somewhere, and when a push comes to my natural, I'd move them there and plant them while attacking with units. That would be terrifying for an opponent. People would always keep them un-planted and plat them whenever they need to. It won't work like that. Static defense is supposed to be static. This is too much of a stretch away from that. | ||
|
Connatic
United States16 Posts
Missile Turret: 25sec Bunker: 35sec Photon Cannon: 40sec Spine/Spore Crawler: 50secs!.....why? | ||
|
phfantunes
Brazil170 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10376 Posts
In my opinion this makes perfect sense, but neither of those two is the case right now. Oh yeah, and I forget to mention just because either extreme isn't possible, does not mean there isn't a middle ground that is "fair". | ||
|
101toss
3232 Posts
On May 10 2011 05:46 Chill wrote: I don't know if units attack faster or what, Spines just die way faster to weak units than Sunkens did. This is probably due to: The higher dps units (marauder, immortal, roach) didn't exist in BW Poorer pathing in BW, meaning that fewer marines will be firing at a sunken in BW than marines firing at a spine in SC2, this difference is further amplified with stim Sunkens do 40 explosive damage (so 20 to marines), while spines are situationally weaker, dealing only 25 (+5 armored) damage. Marines in SC2 are beefier than BW marines, BW marines die to 2 sunken hits while SC2 shield marines take 3 The existence of lurkers means that you can't just charge in with marines to break a sunken line SC2 marines have base range of 5, while BW marines have base range of 4 with 150/150 research required to get 5 range, this complements the pathing issue as well I think the biggest issue out of the above is the smarter pathing, allowing the smaller, more compact marines to have more firepower on a spine. | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
 | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
1) Zerg need a scouting unit that can run in and out of the enemy's base without dying, and the only way to deny scouting is to really position a bunch of unit to kill it off from very beginning, or having stim marines at 6,7 minutes. And btw, while we are at it, why don't we send 2,3 of them in at the same time, since its speed is fast anyway. And who need zergling to poke at the door to scout, that's so risky, just poke an overlord there, it can fly anyway. 2) Zerg need the colony so that it doesn't need to fully commit to defend the base while doing risky greedy build. And by the way, don't take its ability to unroot, or zerg will complain that they have to put their defensive structure at no man land. On the topic though 1) imo, dividing overlord speed into 2 level, hatchery tier allows only +0.5speed, and lair tier allows another +1 speed would be nice. 2) If Blizzard were to buff Zerg's static defense, what do you suggest to nerf to balance out, because I'm sure we are all agree that Zerg with healthy economy is gg for other race. Personally I can't see what can be nerfed, Maybe taking out the queen's attack ability? sounds silly, but isn't that what people want? A similar defensive structure like BW? Although I'm not sure because air aggression in SC2 early game is way more difficult to deal with compared to BW. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 10 2011 11:27 canikizu wrote: 2) If Blizzard were to buff Zerg's static defense, what do you suggest to nerf to balance out, because I'm sure we are all agree that Zerg with healthy economy is gg for other race. Personally I can't see what can be nerfed, Maybe taking out the queen's attack ability? sounds silly, but isn't that what people want? A similar defensive structure like BW? Although I'm not sure because air aggression in SC2 early game is way more difficult to deal with compared to BW. Well, if spines were to build faster it wouldn't mean that they hurt your economy any less. You either need a LOT of spines to defend an allin, or some units to support the spines, so you still wouldn't be able to drone hard while defending. | ||
|
Clerseri
Australia150 Posts
It's only a few more larva, doesn't cost many resources, and has a similar effect - once you see the push coming you build on it, if no push comes you leave them. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
In SC2 you can't do either, nor is there an equivalent. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 10 2011 11:35 Clerseri wrote: If you want to be able to spend a few resources to get a step up on your defence, why not 4-5 roaches rather than 2-3 'half spine crawlers' ? It's only a few more larva, doesn't cost many resources, and has a similar effect - once you see the push coming you build on it, if no push comes you leave them. roaches die fast when outnumbered and dont do much damage thing about spines is they have a lot of health and armor even if their dps isnt thaaaaat great. | ||
|
Whole
United States6046 Posts
On May 10 2011 06:44 MonsieurGrimm wrote: Actually, yes. All-in's in BW were weaker, because in SC2 they're accelerated and strengthened by Mules, Chrono, Larva Inject, Reactors and the shorter rush distance (don't quote me on the last one). It's something IdrA brought up on SotG, I believe, the idea that the aggression is stronger, but the scouting and reactivity for all three races are (arguably) weaker, or at least not scaled to match with the improved aggression. Don't forget that they didn't have so many unit compositions. I don't know the intricacies of BW, but I think Tyler brought it up on SotG that BW didn't have as many compositions because it was usually either Bio or Mech, no crazy mixes like you can do in SC2. Also, I would just like to clear this up to people who think this is a big Zerg QQ party. IdrA has said that Protoss and Terran need earlier options. (He suggested Obs at Cyber Core/Hallucination cheaper and MULES/Scans going to 25 energy with adjustments) It is just that Zerg cannot wall off and are generally the defensive race, so that is why we are the first to complain, but I think Protoss and Terran have scouting problems too. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
