|
On September 05 2015 03:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:32 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:
We just need depots that morph into Supply Fortresses. SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese. On September 05 2015 03:17 Scrubwave wrote:On September 05 2015 03:06 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:44 Scrubwave wrote:
Okay, where are similar aggressive options for zerg and terran? Good question. There is none now, at least for Z. Not after Ovi drops were nerfed. T has the "TOP build", with the proxy starport into Liberator, which wrecks Protoss hard, if they aren't scouting well. Yes, clearly proxy starport is similar to proxy pylons + momma core. Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that. Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs. Well there is a big difference between current cheese and the one in the early WoL days. Currently it seems to me that cheese can be too easily held, even if you don't scout it. It seems that weak. People have become good. Back in the days there were far less and far less efficient responses. You literally wom because your opponent had no clue. Nowadays people know which BOs to play so that even unscouted cheese won't be overly effective with the proper response. That's just the nature of the strategy part of the game. Stuff gets figured out and the only way to keep it alive to the same efficieny would be to make it an alternative standard playstyle, but never as cheese.
Maybe you are right, but we won't know unless we test it thoroughly.
On September 05 2015 03:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
And they expect people to by hyped up for LoTV when they pull this kind of crazy stunt.
Well I'm hyped. Mostly because toss isn't all about the death ball any more, but also for the photon pylons. 
The game feels more dynamic overall, there are small skirmishes all over the map, and this was exactly what people wanted from the start, right? At least that's what I wanted. I wanted SC2 to be more like BW in this regard, to be more back and forth, and matches not to be decided after a single big engagement, which lasts like 2 seconds. And as far as I can tell, LotV delivers on this front.
|
It's not too different from Bunker rushes. Can always build in more weaknesses if number tweaking isn't sufficient. It might just be that it hits too early. Easy ways to fix that.
|
On September 05 2015 03:40 GGzerG wrote:
Whoever thought when I started playing StarCraft back in SC1, that one day Pylons would shoot your enemy. Oh lord.
I was shocked enough that terran became the race that abused burrow mechanics the most.
|
It just sounds like Terran are upset that the same shit they get away with is now usable on them.
Liberators on a worker line?
Bunker Rush that costs a whopping 25 minerals + reaper/marine?
If it needs balancing, then balance it... but I don't think it should be removed.
|
A bunker rush is a large investment. Building a few pylons at the Zerg third is not. Just because the bunker isn't expensive doesn't mean executing the build isn't. It'd be like saying a proxy 2gate only costs as much as the zealots.
|
On September 05 2015 04:17 Cloak wrote:
It's not too different from Bunker rushes. Can always build in more weaknesses if number tweaking isn't sufficient. It might just be that it hits too early. Easy ways to fix that.
Except that it's quite different in many meaningful ways : D
|
On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:
We just need depots that morph into Supply Fortresses. SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese. On September 05 2015 03:17 Scrubwave wrote:On September 05 2015 03:06 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:44 Scrubwave wrote:
Okay, where are similar aggressive options for zerg and terran? Good question. There is none now, at least for Z. Not after Ovi drops were nerfed. T has the "TOP build", with the proxy starport into Liberator, which wrecks Protoss hard, if they aren't scouting well. Yes, clearly proxy starport is similar to proxy pylons + momma core. Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that. Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs.
No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not.
For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in.
From Liquipedia:
Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute.
I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming.
|
On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 03:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:
We just need depots that morph into Supply Fortresses. SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese. On September 05 2015 03:17 Scrubwave wrote:On September 05 2015 03:06 CheddarToss wrote:On September 05 2015 02:44 Scrubwave wrote:
Okay, where are similar aggressive options for zerg and terran? Good question. There is none now, at least for Z. Not after Ovi drops were nerfed. T has the "TOP build", with the proxy starport into Liberator, which wrecks Protoss hard, if they aren't scouting well. Yes, clearly proxy starport is similar to proxy pylons + momma core. Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that. Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs. No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not. For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in. From Liquipedia: Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute. I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming.
Oh gawd ... not a cheese discussion in a strategy game, lol.
I've come to find cheese is anything non-meta. *shrugs*
|
Problem with photon overcharge, either on nexus or pylon is that you don't need units (in place) at all versus low intensity attacks. That and that it is mostly a click and forget ability, MAYBE if you're very good you'll target it on the medevac...
If the ability would give the pylon an ability akind to a shield battery it would still give some defencive advantage, while requiring actually skill to use properly and units in position.
But then again because of 2seconds warp-ins...
|
Canada11355 Posts
On September 04 2015 20:18 algue wrote:Buildings being able to attack is an Ork thing. Blizzard should stay true to Protoss original design : the Eldars (looks and design wise). Pylons = nerfed webway gate with a plasma generator skin. Just make the protoss pylon a real webway gate : http://dow.wikia.com/wiki/Dawn_of_War/Webway_Gate
As someone who entered local tournaments for Dawn of War...
Eldar is 100x more annoying than anything protoss has had or will have.
|
Cannon rush needed a buff so........
PHOTON OVERCHARGE PYLONS TOO!!!!
|
On September 05 2015 06:42 Bohemond wrote:
A bunker rush is a large investment. Building a few pylons at the Zerg third is not. Just because the bunker isn't expensive doesn't mean executing the build isn't. It'd be like saying a proxy 2gate only costs as much as the zealots.
So your argument is that Pylon rush shouldn't be allowed because it's mechanically easier than Bunker rush?
What about the fact that Bunker rush isn't all-in. Two or more forward Pylons pretty much is.
Terran has the type of harass that means you have to pay attention and deal with it, or you lose the game to one or two units. Now Toss has something similar. I don't see much of a problem here.
Like I said, if it needs balancing, then balance it.
|
On September 05 2015 11:04 QSpec wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 06:42 Bohemond wrote:
A bunker rush is a large investment. Building a few pylons at the Zerg third is not. Just because the bunker isn't expensive doesn't mean executing the build isn't. It'd be like saying a proxy 2gate only costs as much as the zealots. So your argument is that Pylon rush shouldn't be allowed because it's mechanically easier than Bunker rush? What about the fact that Bunker rush isn't all-in. Two or more forward Pylons pretty much is. Terran has the type of harass that means you have to pay attention and deal with it, or you lose the game to one or two units. Now Toss has something similar. I don't see much of a problem here. Like I said, if it needs balancing, then balance it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Building two/three forward pylons at the Zerg third is all-in? Get over your obvious racial biases.
I'm mostly a spectator, I haven't played SC2 much since Wings (or any video games much, really). I don't give a crap about racial dick waving. Pointing out that overcharging a forward pylon and a bunker rush are exceptionally different in cost and attention required is like saying the sky is blue.
The single reaper + bunker isn't even a real thing vs. Toss anyway. It's only commonly used vs. zerg to force them to make lings instead of drones and delay mining at the natural. And if you start making more reapers, it slows your build down by a large amount. Think about what's good for the game.
|
On September 05 2015 11:04 QSpec wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 06:42 Bohemond wrote:
A bunker rush is a large investment. Building a few pylons at the Zerg third is not. Just because the bunker isn't expensive doesn't mean executing the build isn't. It'd be like saying a proxy 2gate only costs as much as the zealots. So your argument is that Pylon rush shouldn't be allowed because it's mechanically easier than Bunker rush? What about the fact that Bunker rush isn't all-in. Two or more forward Pylons pretty much is. Terran has the type of harass that means you have to pay attention and deal with it, or you lose the game to one or two units. Now Toss has something similar. I don't see much of a problem here. Like I said, if it needs balancing, then balance it.
Pylon overcharge is nothing like bunker rushing, its more like deppot rushing, if deppots had the attack, and they dealt the damage of tank without splash, while being capable of teleporting barracks units, so yeah they are not alike in the slightest.
|
I do agree to a certain extent but at the same time it just released so lets give some time for build orders to be adapted.
|
On September 05 2015 12:09 TakeDown29 wrote:
I do agree to a certain extent but at the same time it just released so lets give some time for build orders to be adapted.
Even if it's perfectly balanced. Do you really want every future change to the game to be balanced taking PO'd pylons into account? This is just digging the Mothership Core hole deeper. There should not be heroes units in SC2. The MC has been a problem ever since it was implemented as a band-aid fix to Protoss due to problems with the race that stem from Warpgate.
In fact, pretty much everything added in HotS has turned out to be a problem...
|
so are pylons zuggernauts now from wc3
|
On September 05 2015 11:42 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 11:04 QSpec wrote:On September 05 2015 06:42 Bohemond wrote:
A bunker rush is a large investment. Building a few pylons at the Zerg third is not. Just because the bunker isn't expensive doesn't mean executing the build isn't. It'd be like saying a proxy 2gate only costs as much as the zealots. So your argument is that Pylon rush shouldn't be allowed because it's mechanically easier than Bunker rush? What about the fact that Bunker rush isn't all-in. Two or more forward Pylons pretty much is. Terran has the type of harass that means you have to pay attention and deal with it, or you lose the game to one or two units. Now Toss has something similar. I don't see much of a problem here. Like I said, if it needs balancing, then balance it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manBuilding two/three forward pylons at the Zerg third is all-in? Get over your obvious racial biases. I'm mostly a spectator, I haven't played SC2 much since Wings (or any video games much, really). I don't give a crap about racial dick waving. Pointing out that overcharging a forward pylon and a bunker rush are exceptionally different in cost and attention required is like saying the sky is blue. The single reaper + bunker isn't even a real thing vs. Toss anyway. It's only commonly used vs. zerg to force them to make lings instead of drones and delay mining at the natural. And if you start making more reapers, it slows your build down by a large amount. Think about what's good for the game.
Oh come on, man. Don't be that guy that quotes the wikipedia strawman article. I assumed you were talking about the mechanical requirements because the mineral requirements are lower... that's simply a fact. If they stack it with Reapers, the gas requirements are there, but the mineral costs are still lower. Not to mention that Toss is risking supply on top of whatever mineral cost... and supply at that stage in the game isn't trivial.
And yes, I think due to the upfront cost, the energy cost (leaving Toss's bases open to counter-attack once dealt with), and the potential supply damage, this will turn out to be an all-in.
In any case, not that it's worth responding to, I have zero Toss bias. I despise them as a race. I despise their gameplay. I have no sympathy for them. If I'm ever fighting a bias, it's toward Zerg. So don't hurl baseless accusations that have no bearing here... or do I have to be that guy that links you the ad hominem wikipedia page?
I'm just saying, if it needs balancing the balance it. I think that's perfectly fine for the game. After all, people have been dealing with it in the form of bunker rush and cannon rush since SC2 came out.
|
On September 05 2015 06:39 QSpec wrote:
It just sounds like Terran are upset that the same shit they get away with is now usable on them.
Liberators on a worker line?
Bunker Rush that costs a whopping 25 minerals + reaper/marine?
If it needs balancing, then balance it... but I don't think it should be removed.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
On September 05 2015 15:44 QSpec wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 11:42 Bohemond wrote:On September 05 2015 11:04 QSpec wrote:On September 05 2015 06:42 Bohemond wrote:
A bunker rush is a large investment. Building a few pylons at the Zerg third is not. Just because the bunker isn't expensive doesn't mean executing the build isn't. It'd be like saying a proxy 2gate only costs as much as the zealots. So your argument is that Pylon rush shouldn't be allowed because it's mechanically easier than Bunker rush? What about the fact that Bunker rush isn't all-in. Two or more forward Pylons pretty much is. Terran has the type of harass that means you have to pay attention and deal with it, or you lose the game to one or two units. Now Toss has something similar. I don't see much of a problem here. Like I said, if it needs balancing, then balance it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manBuilding two/three forward pylons at the Zerg third is all-in? Get over your obvious racial biases. I'm mostly a spectator, I haven't played SC2 much since Wings (or any video games much, really). I don't give a crap about racial dick waving. Pointing out that overcharging a forward pylon and a bunker rush are exceptionally different in cost and attention required is like saying the sky is blue. The single reaper + bunker isn't even a real thing vs. Toss anyway. It's only commonly used vs. zerg to force them to make lings instead of drones and delay mining at the natural. And if you start making more reapers, it slows your build down by a large amount. Think about what's good for the game. Oh come on, man. Don't be that guy that quotes the wikipedia strawman article. I assumed you were talking about the mechanical requirements because the mineral requirements are lower... that's simply a fact. If they stack it with Reapers, the gas requirements are there, but the mineral costs are still lower. Not to mention that Toss is risking supply on top of whatever mineral cost... and supply at that stage in the game isn't trivial. And yes, I think due to the upfront cost, the energy cost (leaving Toss's bases open to counter-attack once dealt with), and the potential supply damage, this will turn out to be an all-in. In any case, not that it's worth responding to, I have zero Toss bias. I despise them as a race. I despise their gameplay. I have no sympathy for them. If I'm ever fighting a bias, it's toward Zerg. So don't hurl baseless accusations that have no bearing here... or do I have to be that guy that links you the ad hominem wikipedia page? I'm just saying, if it needs balancing the balance it. I think that's perfectly fine for the game. After all, people have been dealing with it in the form of bunker rush and cannon rush since SC2 came out.
You presented a sham argument and refuted it.
So your argument is that Pylon rush shouldn't be allowed because it's mechanically easier than Bunker rush?
That's a strawman through and through.
You have no idea what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is attacking a person instead of their argument. I.e. 'you're wrong because you're ugly.' Or, 'you're wrong because you're biased.' What I did was insult you, albeit mildly. It would only be an ad hominem if I were attempting to use the insult to fallaciously refute your argument. A baseless insult is not an ad hominem. It's merely a baseless insult. So, assuming you have no racial bias, my comment is incorrect. But by no means is it an ad hominem.
I have no interest refuting the argument that a reaper in a bunker at the Zerg's natural is in anyway comparable to placing a few pylons at a Zerg player's third, nor have I attempted to. I simply told you to get over your racial bias, which you admit to having in the sentence immediately following your refutation of it. Perhaps what you meant to say was that you have 'zero bias in favor of Toss'?
This whole thing stems from a misunderstanding by me. When I said that a bunker rush was a larger investment than a pylon rush, it was because I assumed you were referring to a more cheesy from of bunker rush than the one reaper + one SCV variety. Such as proxy rax or multiple reapers.
Comparing a minor form of harassment (1 reaper + 1 scv + bunker) to the potential abuse and cheese opened up by PO on pylons is so stupid it didn't occur to me that it was what you meant (this is an insult, I'm saying what you said is too stupid to bother with, I am not putting forth an argument of any kind, fallacious or otherwise).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
