|
On September 05 2015 08:54 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral 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. 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*
You are so right.. People seem to think that anything that doesnt let them 3hatch before pool is considered "cheese" Anything that doesnt let terran CC first is cheese. It's sickening that the definition of cheese or all-in is basically anything that doesn't let a player be comfortable.
This game NEEDS more aggressive builds to punish the super macro openings. Thats the biggest thing I hate about SC2 - theres too many "safe" macro builds. If you 3 hatch before pool and your opponent doesnt nexus/cc first, you should be punished. Thats what made BW so good, the only person who could consistently do super greedy macro openings and hold it was Flash, because hes super-human..
|
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.
In sc2, most things your opponent does are scoutable, some things more so than others. A weak play that only works because of enemies mistakes is exactly what you are describing as cheese here, except this description is much more extreme.
Although I don't completely agree with it being a "weak play", both of your definitions of cheese are the same. Being unprepared is synonymous to opponent mistake, because being unprepared is a mistake.
|
On September 04 2015 16:56 Bohemond wrote:
Literally the first thing I thought when I read the patch notes was 'pylon rush.' I don't get how these types of things get past the brainstorm stage. I had to reread the post twice when I saw it only cost 25 energy. Didn't believe... But, same guys who made the Warhound, Cyclone, and tried to buff DT speed.
I can't even imagine how hard it is to take a 3rd as Zerg right now...
well they spent time testing automated production. anything is possible now.
|
On September 05 2015 21:13 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2015 16:56 Bohemond wrote:
Literally the first thing I thought when I read the patch notes was 'pylon rush.' I don't get how these types of things get past the brainstorm stage. I had to reread the post twice when I saw it only cost 25 energy. Didn't believe... But, same guys who made the Warhound, Cyclone, and tried to buff DT speed.
I can't even imagine how hard it is to take a 3rd as Zerg right now... well they spent time testing automated production. anything is possible now.
Granted I am grateful that they at least tested it before saying "wow this is stupid."
I believe, deep in my heart that they should've just known intuitively that it was stupid, being the guys who built the game, but game is in beta, may as well try out all the random things that pop into one's head now.
|
I honestly can't believe the MSC is still a thing in LoTV. It had its place in HoTS (clumsy fix, but I saw the point at least) but it really seems like if they can't make the game work without it at this point they need a fresh set of opinions on game design or something.
|
I've always thought photon overcharge was cancer. So apparently I was right, since it's spreading to pylons.
|
If it is a problem because it is better than old cannon rushes pre-lotv, that's one thing. But if builds just require 4 lings be built before your third then so what. The whining after one day of a patch is laughable though either way. From the polls only 1/6 Representation at TL is Protoss. It shows.
|
More important, colossi death play play has returned :\ I'm a GM toss player :\
|
On September 05 2015 17:07 Bohemond wrote:
That's a strawman through and through.
It's not a strawman at all. It was at worst a misunderstanding... just like you made in your original post regarding my post. So let's just move on here.
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 a pretty clear idea of what an ad hominum is. Hell, let me show you using only your words.
'you're wrong because you're biased.
Get over your obvious racial biases.
The implication is that I'm biased, so I can't possibly be right about this. So yes, assuming I have no racial bias, your comment is incorrect... and it is also an ad hominem. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Perhaps what you meant to say was that you have 'zero bias in favor of Toss'?
Isn't that what I *effectively* said? I'm sure your faux-intellectualism occasionally brushes up against basic reasoning... so I figured you could read between the lines. Since you seem unable, let me do it for you:
You imply I have a bias in favor of Toss. I tell you I despise the race (implying that I don't have a bias in favor of Toss)... Let's not be foolishly literal here simply to up our word count.
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).
Holy balls... finally something worth talking about (kind of). Ignoring for a second that I think one will turn out to be an all-in, and the other is a remarkably viable way shutting down expansions, forcing units, or otherwise being a pretty massive econ sink (relative to the early game), all we are discussing is balance.
So for the third... fucking... time... if it needs balanced, then simply balance it. Voila. Problem solved. Now you can quite forum whining. The world makes sense again, and I can stop losing sleep over the mean, mean insults you keep hurling.
And for the record, you are putting forth an argument. Hand-waiving it away as an insult doesn't stop it from being an argument... It's just an unimpressive argument that makes you look petty and cunty.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out since you have more interest in being insulting than forming a coherent argument that takes a stronger position than "I simply don't like it, and I don't think we should try a single thing before bitching and moaning 2-hours after it drops". So, the last word is yours. I'm sure it's going to be remarkable!
|
you can kill the pylon now, right? Seems like a pretty big change. Haven't tested it but there were a couple roach pressures against 2 gate adept openings which are now worth trying. On some maps even against 1 gate gas adept the same roach pressure was strong at times.
|
It's not a strawman at all. It was at worst a misunderstanding... just like you made in your original post regarding my post. So let's just move on here.
You made up a sham argument. Whether intentional or not, it was a straw man. (I didn't kill that guy, because I didn't mean to shoot him!)
The implication is that I'm biased, so I can't possibly be right about this. So yes, assuming I have no racial bias, your comment is incorrect... and it is also an ad hominem. They aren't mutually exclusive.
I said that an ad hominem was an attempt to refute an argument by attack the person instead of their argument. Obviously I know they are not mutually exclusive. But what you fail to comprehend is that an argument in this context refers to 'a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.'
When I told you to get over your racial bias, I was telling you to get over your racial bias. Nothing was implied. It is a clear and concise statement.
Isn't that what I *effectively* said?
No, it is literally the exact opposite of what you said. I was, however, able to figure out what you meant to say, because I assumed that you didn't know what bias meant. Just like straw man and ad hominem.
You imply I have a bias in favor of Toss. I tell you I despise the race (implying that I don't have a bias in favor of Toss)
Actually, from this exchange I am lead to believe you have bias against Terran. Since you seem to have an irrational dislike of bunker rushes. I also wonder why you even watch/play this game when you feel so negatively about Protoss and Terran bunkers which will be in every game that's not a ZvZ.
a remarkably viable way shutting down expansions, forcing units, or otherwise being a pretty massive econ sink (relative to the early game), all we are discussing is balance.
*What follows in an actual argument about SC2*
A single reaper in a bunker in ZvT, assuming anywhere near proper play, can delay mining slightly at the natural and force a few extra lings. This use of 'shutting down' seems a bit out of place. Assuming what you say is correct, one begins to wonder why bunker rushes are not more common in professional matches. Either pro Terran players just don't have the game as figured out as you do, or...?
all we are discussing is balance
At no point anywhere in this thread have I said anything what so ever about balance. Balance isn't the concern. It's design that is the concern and that this change is an awkward band-aid for a spell and unit that should not even be in the game. Widow Mine drops in TvP are 'balanced,' but as we've seen, especially recently in the Korean leagues, they can create bad/coin flippy games. BL/Infestor was 'balanced' vs. Mothership toilet/Archon. Oracles are 'balanced' vs. Terran in the early game.
The problem is how poorly Blizzard is dealing with Protoss. They gave Protoss the only hero unit in the game to cover up warpgate issues. Now warp ins have bizarre rules regarding their placement and warp in time, to try and band-aid over the problem with the mechanic. They're trying to make pylons an attacking structure. Adepts are in a horrible place.
The new Terran units are questionable at best. And it's hard to forget that pretty much everything added in the previous expansion has required extensive changes or has been removed from the game (Swarm Hosts). Makes a fellow pessimistic.
And for the record, you are putting forth an argument. Hand-waiving it away as an insult doesn't stop it from being an argument... It's just an unimpressive argument that makes you look petty and cunty.
I am now. Before I was just calling you overly biased and ignorant. Which is pretty clear, since you seem to think that single reaper bunker rushes are something other than mild harassment, don't know what the words you use mean, and you think I'm complaining about balance when I've said nothing on the subject.
|
I really think people are missing the mark.
Theres nothing wrong with being capable of having PO on pylons.
BUT theres something VERY wrong with being capable of having PO in any pylon.
The problem with something like this, is that, like anything protoss, it has the capacity of being very abusable very easy, wich creates a duality, its either too strong, or it is too weak, thats what created the problem with gateway units, it was very easy to abuse them due to warpgate so in compensation they had to be weak wich made them very weak in straight play.
This is the same, if they nerf them to mantain aggressive pylons they would have to be nerfed and would be very weak in defense, or they leave them as is and are very good in defence and too strong (even broken) in the offensive.
For the record, I do like the pylon PO, and I even like them as is, the range, the duration, the damage and cost are a bit overboard but its not bad, they have plenty of counter play, some strategies are viable now, like opening banshee, but being capable of doing it anywhere on the map is just too much, otherwise it would be a great change.
|
this thread is hilarious ^^ you're all reacting like the game is coming out tomorrow. Well guess what, it's not. They are testing stuff, if they find out that it's op after thousands of games has been played, they will change it.
|
On September 06 2015 18:11 oGoZenob wrote:
this thread is hilarious ^^ you're all reacting like the game is coming out tomorrow. Well guess what, it's not. They are testing stuff, if they find out that it's op after thousands of games has been played, they will change it.
We're in september so it's more than likely they're aiming at a release in ~3 months, 4 at most. What bothers me most is the fact that at this point we basically wasted 5 months of beta and they're still throwing stuff that remotely makes sense at us. The game is not going to become solid and viable for competition overnight so I think that "hey, what if we..." phase has to end in two weeks at most.
|
On September 05 2015 23:15 Jarree wrote:
I've always thought photon overcharge was cancer. So apparently I was right, since it's spreading to pylons.
Ha ha ha ha 
Nice one.
|
Here's an idea:
- remove the MScore ( or keep it only for recall ? )
- bring back energy on nexus ( not for chronos, only for PO ).
- nexus can cast PO on any pylon within a 9 range
- ability costs 50 energy
Consequence: no more agressive pylons PO shit, while keeping a pretty strong defense.
|
On September 06 2015 21:07 Nyast wrote:
Here's an idea:
- remove the MScore ( or keep it only for recall ? )
- bring back energy on nexus ( not for chronos, only for PO ).
- nexus can cast PO on any pylon within a 9 range
- ability costs 50 energy
Consequence: no more agressive pylons PO shit, while keeping a pretty strong defense.
Interesting.
|
On September 06 2015 21:07 Nyast wrote:
Here's an idea:
- remove the MScore ( or keep it only for recall ? )
- bring back energy on nexus ( not for chronos, only for PO ).
- nexus can cast PO on any pylon within a 9 range
- ability costs 50 energy
Consequence: no more agressive pylons PO shit, while keeping a pretty strong defense.
Nice one!
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50118 Posts
remove mothership core and bring back the arbiter, and true to Blizz's current track record makes the cloaking field an active ability.
On September 06 2015 21:07 Nyast wrote:
Here's an idea:
- remove the MScore ( or keep it only for recall ? )
- bring back energy on nexus ( not for chronos, only for PO ).
- nexus can cast PO on any pylon within a 9 range
- ability costs 50 energy
Consequence: no more agressive pylons PO shit, while keeping a pretty strong defense.
legit, would work pretty well
|
On September 06 2015 21:39 BLinD-RawR wrote:remove mothership core and bring back the arbiter, and true to Blizz's current track record makes the cloaking field an active ability. Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 21:07 Nyast wrote:
Here's an idea:
- remove the MScore ( or keep it only for recall ? )
- bring back energy on nexus ( not for chronos, only for PO ).
- nexus can cast PO on any pylon within a 9 range
- ability costs 50 energy
Consequence: no more agressive pylons PO shit, while keeping a pretty strong defense.
legit, would work pretty well
No idea if it would work well, but it sounds a lot better than the current solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
