EPT[A] Starbow - Page 151
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On November 12 2012 10:44 JohnnyZerg wrote: who made this units test map? It was a template test map. All the units and everything are from Starbow. I'll have it uploaded on NA soon as it's cleaned up. | ||
|
Traceback
United States469 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
My gate way units are getting chewed up completely by speedy lings. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On November 12 2012 11:42 Laertes wrote: its funny because everyone including gossen thought they got a nerf. I just had to adjust tactics to deal with them. Blink stalkers no good vs them. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
CapnAmerica
United States508 Posts
On November 12 2012 10:16 decemberscalm wrote: The units, all research (mines, charge, duality, seige) http://imgur.com/fVU6A,Jrbf7,9hP4S The setup http://imgur.com/fVU6A,Jrbf7,9hP4S#1 Overlapping field of fire, overkill shouldn't occur too harshly Toss is given an a-move attack with their units clumped up just like that. The mines and tank splash should annihilate clumped units, but immortals are the vanguard. That is one round of spider mines placed (T is lucky to have even that in a mid map fight, even luckier to have his tanks spread its a pretty defensive posture for T). After the fight. http://imgur.com/fVU6A,Jrbf7,9hP4S#2 Target firing the immortals with the vultures doesn't help as its a brutal waste of dps that could go to the zealots instead. This is with the latest patch, imagine how sad prepatch would have been. You need more space to engage P, mines spread out further away where tanks can cover them from being obs sniped and you kite the zealots with vultures which have to be in front of your army. Proper vulture movement helps to deal a bit with how strong the P units are, and if you fire at immortals at all it can't be right before the big fight happens there. You target fire the gateway units with tanks and let splash damage immortals, then take them down when shields are down, losing a few tanks in the process. If you're on the map without a bunker versus a push like that, you've made a tactical error already as Terran. And P can engage that army but there's really no point, better to mass bases behind the gateway/immortal army that's impenetrable and then crush with mass gateways and storm/reaver. Just throwing in my 2¢. | ||
|
CapnAmerica
United States508 Posts
On November 12 2012 11:46 decemberscalm wrote: I just had to adjust tactics to deal with them. Blink stalkers no good vs them. Lings did get nerfed pretty heavily, but with higher HP you can crush certain builds that aren't really that viable with more ease. It's just more obvious because of unit retention and people being unwise with army positioning in PvZ. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:36 CapnAmerica wrote: Lings did get nerfed pretty heavily, but with higher HP you can crush certain builds that aren't really that viable with more ease. It's just more obvious because of unit retention and people being unwise with army positioning in PvZ. Ling speed increase made the build me and Can were using pretty damn ineffective. Lings catch blink stalkers and eat them alive now. Before Zergs had to spine up to not die vs it. Right now I'm using mostly zealots, 1 or 2 stalkers to kill any banes just in case. By the time I get my third, storm should be up pretty quickly. I had some amazing unit positions for stalkers vs pure ling aggression, doesn't matter. Stalkers just don't contend well vs pure ling early on. Can't wait to use archons. | ||
|
CapnAmerica
United States508 Posts
Archons are the sex, and the thing that truly makes P have an unstoppable "core" army in PvZ later on if they survive properly. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On November 12 2012 12:56 CapnAmerica wrote: I played against Canhanrah's build (several days ago) and absolutely DESTROYED it with lings before the speed buff. Agreed on the stalker vs Pure Ling thing. Archons are the sex, and the thing that truly makes P have an unstoppable "core" army in PvZ later on if they survive properly. But can can't micro  | ||
|
CapnAmerica
United States508 Posts
It's not a question of micro -- in SC2 and in Starbow you eventually have too many Zerglings for blink stalkers to handle, if you prepare adequately and don't let their stalker numbers snowball. I had like... a lot of Zerglings. Off many hatches, with injects, and macro hatches. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
It seems to be a great tool for checking unit interactions! Any chance to get it uploaded on EU too? : ) @Cheese I am a bit skeptic about the barrack before supply depot too.. But I decided to give it a try atleast.. If it adds something good to the game I will let it remain.. It is indeed a potential early threat. I just fear that it might become an "unstopable" early cheese because of Calldown SCV @ front to build bunkers, bunkers can be salvaged to regain the investment, reactors are built fast and are cheaper.. Proxy barrack with 1 reactor before supply depot.... Only requires 25 gas.. I let it remain for exploration. @TvP Hopefully the patch was a step in the right direction atleast ^^ @ZvP Did the slight speed increase of Zerglings in this patch have a large impact on the Stalkers - Zerglings relation? Sounds like Stalkers are unplayable now they way you talk about it : O | ||
|
Traceback
United States469 Posts
Maybe a nerf for a week will help encourage them to expand the meta. I'm sure there are some other more advanced strategies that could be explored *cough* sair reaver *cough*. | ||
|
makmeatt
2024 Posts
On November 12 2012 18:11 Traceback wrote: I think (from what I have seen) toss were relying a little too much on heavy blink aggression in PvZ... >.> Maybe a nerf for a week will help encourage them to expand the meta. I'm sure there are some other more advanced strategies that could be explored *cough* sair reaver *cough*. You can't rely 'too much' on a certain strategy if there's no counter for it. The need to force ka player to develop new strats in case his usual plan fails, ergo forcing a meta change, is a crucial sign of a bad game design. | ||
|
Danko__
Poland429 Posts
You can't rely 'too much' on a certain strategy if there's no counter for it. The need to force ka player to develop new strats in case his usual plan fails, ergo forcing a meta change, is a crucial sign of a bad game design. No. Most of the time its all about balance, not design. It's not a question of micro -- in SC2 and in Starbow you eventually have too many Zerglings for blink stalkers to handle, if you prepare adequately and don't let their stalker numbers snowball Thats most important. If number of stalkers is growing then doesnt matter how many lings you will have. As toss you have to keep pressuring, forcing defences and keep your stalkers alive. If you are loosing 1-2 stalkers here and there then you are doing it wrong. | ||
|
makmeatt
2024 Posts
On November 12 2012 20:23 Danko__ wrote: No. Most of the time its all about balance, not design. I don't think that slight balance changes would force you to develop a completely new strategy for a matchup, and that's what we are talking about here. On the other hand, if you want to change certain unit's impact on the gameplay by modifying numbers, you are essentially changing its function in the game, therefore modifying the design. | ||
|
Danko__
Poland429 Posts
I don't think that slight balance changes would force you to develop a completely new strategy for a matchup, and that's what we are talking about here. Exactly. Thats why i dont belive any of these really affected viability of this strat. More likely opponents it was used against learned how to play vs it. On the other hand, if you want to change certain unit's impact on the gameplay by modifying numbers, you are essentially changing its function in the game, therefore modifying the design. Sc2 fungal change with doubling dps and halving duration was change like that, but not +0,2ms to speedling. | ||
|
makmeatt
2024 Posts
| ||
| ||
