EPT+ Show Spoiler +
one day we'll figure out two base muta vs terran *sniff*
[A] Starbow - Page 224
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
I did get vikings but against 40+ mutalisks 5-6 vikings doesn't matter. More vikings? I produced vikings out of 2 starports (1 reactor + 1 techlab), but apparently not enough cus he can trade mutas for vikings over and over so you never reach the critical amount of vikings (also what is the critical mass of vikings - against 20-25 it might be 7. But "suddenly" he just had 40+ vikings and 15 vikings is the critical mass. I don't think there is any way that you on a reliable way can get that critical mass. Rather its just about having some vikings to support your marines). The only way to afford more vikings would be to cut down tank production (which I kinda did too some extent), but that would be an in "hindsight-decision), because I need +10 tanks against a potential tech switch. Never let him get that amount of mutalisks? How do I do that? Marines? Due to the short stim duration they are useless in catching up to mutas. As I said preivously it would be an "easy fix" to replace the current stim with Sc2 stim (and make medi's get stimmed as well...) Vessels? I highly doubt that investing in irradiate + reducing viking count (since it takes up production space that could be used for vikings) would be that efficient. Also with my difficulties in keeping vikings alive I doubt that SV's would have done anything but trading mutalisks for sv'1 in a 1:1 ratio. +2 turret armor - Would help indeed, but likely wouldn't matter against 40+ mutalisks. Getting it before +3/3 would require 3ebays though. Please tell me at exact times exactly what I should have done differently. | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
On March 01 2013 10:52 JohnnyZerg wrote: have you tried matrix on viking? But i think not is necessay. I suggested to kabel, a couple of fixes for the viking: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17828330 Kinda good idea. I mean at least that would mean I would be able to split my forces (by having maybe 5 medis at each group). (like having one group defending location X with a couple of tanks + 5 medis + 7-8 vikings, and then having the remaining forces at another location). | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
On March 01 2013 16:28 SolidSMD wrote: Irradiate is very good against muta's, as it is extremely taxing on the zergs multitasking and micro. Sadly it's not available instantly, so i suggest a bio-opening or vultureharras into bio, you can transition to mech afterwards if you really want. When i was more active, bio never failed me tbh. Unless zerg got buffed a lot, i'd stick with it. 1) I opened bio. But as I indirectly implied in my opening post, the opening really didn't matter as we were somewhat when he got mutas out (unless of course you believe terran always should be ahead at that time). 2) Mech transition doesn't make sense unlike in BW for two reasons; A) In starbow heavy tank/bio play with matrix is the most cost effective composition in the game. B) There is no way I could ever afford a transition into 1/0 goliath's vs 2/2 mutas. 3) I don't believe in irradiate as the counter to mutas for two reasons; A) It doesn't have any long-term viability to hope that my opponent can't micro those mutalisks against irradiate. Cutting viking production for SV's isn't efficient against great zerg players. B) My gas count was very low, and in fact I believed i should have even more medis which would make any SV's unaffordable 3) Since I uploaded replay I have thought of slight tweaks to make to my gameplay, however there should be no doubt that mass mutas is much much stronger than in both BW and Sc2 (where they in my opinion were balanced). Simply put I still think the current version of stim should be replaced with the sc2 version. EDIT: Played some more and I think the key to beat muta play is to to cut down on tank production a lot and having vikings in well thought of positions so that they can defend against counterattacks (assuming you move away from your main base at some point in the game), and can assist in the fight if the zerg player wants to battle you straight on. The dangerous part of "cutting tanks" is that is that your very vulnerable to tech transitions but at least I think that is possible to react to by scanning a lot and having a great understanding of the various timings. Still I am not exactly sure why stim was changed. I honestly feel so helpless at times knowing that i can't use my marines to "catch up". | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
On March 02 2013 17:20 decemberscalm wrote: I don't know if you fixed the worker count bug, but if you set ideal worker count to 2 it'll change it from 24 to 16, this is on the Mineral ability. I noticed that it works on some maps, while on others not. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
vrumFondel
Russian Federation42 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
Traceback
United States469 Posts
On March 03 2013 05:21 Xiphias wrote: Bug(s?): Burrowed zerg structures do not loose hp when burrowed off creap. And I think air units are sometimes visible even on high ground.. In normal SC2 if an air unit shoots from the high ground, the units on the low ground gain vision of it. This is the default way it works. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
After having watched a lot of pvt games from bw it definitely seems like Stasis was much less of a factor in BW than in Starbow. From my view point I don't even think terrans paid signifcant attention to presplitting their tanks against stasis. So why was Stasis so much weaker in BW than the (prepatch version of stasis in starbow). Besides obivous reasons such sa drop play from terran being stronger (which makes protoss have less infinite money -this probably get inflated with chrono boost as well) and smartcast, I also feel like the major thing might be an AI thing; In BW it seemed like the protoss had a more difficult time abusing immobility. For instance I rarely see any games where the protoss counterattacks after the terran has moved out with the majority of his army. I believe this is becasue when a protoss tries to counterattack with a big army his units will take up a lot of space so terran has an easier time repositioning his tanks to respond to the counterattack threat. This means that, unlike in Starbow, the terran can attack with his whole army rather than splitting up his army, which has two consequences; 1) Each stasis matters less as it a smaller percentage of total army value in battle. 2) Terran can use more time on positoning science vessels correctly. Another thing which further incentivizes the terran to preemptive splitting is warp tech/warp prism which means that a protoss army can threaten a terran base prior/combined with recall. Actually I believe this is a great thing, and I believ starbow has potential to be even more exiciting than BW, because frankly there wasn't that much multitasking in pvt - battles just lasted longer. However, with a couple of small tweaks I believe Starbow can create a matchup that is even better than the BW TvP, however every balance/design decision must take into account that the "metagame" in starbow is slightly different than in BW. How I think bio TvZ should be "fixed" So I think this matchup while extremely entertaining to play as the skill cap is so high, I still think it has some flaws. While I do think mass mutas are beatable, the margin of error is really really small. For instance if you lose a couple of vikings at a pivotal time you might just lose the game. In Sc2 losing a thor would be bad, but not game ending (as you still had 60+marines with sc2 stim). Now some may think that small margins of error are great and increases skill cap (like I could just learn to not lose vikings). But I don't think that is a great design, and if we want to replicate the way BW worked (combined with sc2 mechanics), then this is the wrong approach. Here is why; - In BW the skill cap was so high and there were always things you could have done differently. At most skill levels (like bottom 99%) I guess you could always say that there were a lot of times throughout the game you could have benefitted for better mechanics. This means that you were challeneged throughout the whole game mechanically rather than just "challeneged during a "1-second battle". - In Sc2 macro'ing very very well is actually not that difficult, which means that it often times comes down to "split-second micro". This creates a very volatile gameplay, and in my opinion less entertaining. - The solution for Starbow isn't to return to BW mechanics, however, instead unit control in Starbow must be about getting small advantages all the time. When designing an ability it has to be about small risk/small reward, and each ability must be very difficult to master. In BW you didn't lose the game cus your macro was suboptimal in a 5-10 second period. Starbow needs to be the same thing regarding unit control. Im sure there are situations where BW was unforgiveable as well, but in general "BW mechanics" is about playing really really well for 30+ minuts while Sc2 mechanics is about "1-second battles". Proposed changes to terran 1) Make matrix not work on nonbiological units (something proposed by johnnyzerg as well). 2) Matrix cost reduced from 150/150 to 100/100 3) Implement Sc2 stim instead of Starbow stim. 4) Make medis be stimmed as well. Explaining matrix suggestion So why have I suggested these specific changes? Well if we look at matrix as I have talked about previously I believe this ability, while difficult to use optimally will once the terran "metagame" gets figured out turn out to be hopelessly overpowered. It basically makes ultras and banelings (and lings) completely useless and once you get a high enough siege tank count, hydras sux as well. In theory a unit composition consisting of a couple of marines, vikings, medis and tanks is absolutely unbeatable. While terran should be cost effective vs zerg I believe matrix crosses the line (basically you can be like 2-3 times more cost effective than the zerg if you control properly). So how would the matchup change if matrix was removed? My theory is that terrans that opens bio would add siege tanks relatively late into the game and instead they will use the firebat more activately (matrix'ing that unit). Banelings will now see more use in the matchup and it will require active splitting from the terran to win the game (combined with good matrix control). As the game progess's terrans will need to implement siege tanks as well (when the zerg unit count gets too high) but I believe this change will help to differenaite how bio and mech works. Explaining stim suggestion So to follow up in the last sentence; Mech and bio/mech in tvz works way too similarly. In sc2 it was more different, as you had a semimobile army if you went marine/tank but an immobile army with pure mech. When going a bio/tank/viking style in Starbow you are hopelessly immobile against for instance mass mutas or even overlord drops/nydus etc. With the short stim duration you bascially can't use your bio force to catch up to anything (and if you try do it then your medis will be way behind the bio units which makes you lose the fight anyway). So basically you have to preemptively split up your whole army when going bio/mech, just like you do with mech. However, due to the OP'ness of matrix I see very little advantage of actually going mech over bio/mech (cus your simply more cost effective with matrix's). So these two changes will help make bio/tank more mobile + micro intensive but less cost efficient in straight up fight than pure mech and make some zerg units viable once again. Another thing is that you at time feel so damn hopeless when trying to use bio units to catch up to something. In sc2 the awesome thing about bio was that you felt so free and it was like you could do anything. With bio in Starbow you feel much more locked, which is something I think should be reserved for mech. Regarding how this will help to replicate the "Bw-skillcap"; This will make it more forgiveable if your unit position/viking count isn't 100% optimal. Like say you only have 4-5 vikings in location X instead of 8-9 (the optimal amount), that would lead you to lose the game quite often since bio units can't catch up to mutas. With a more mobile bio force the suboptimal play from the terran player will still be punished, but rather than turning a 50%vs50% game into a 90%vs10% it will become a 60%vs40%. | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
I think matrix is more beautiful with a fixed number of shield (200?), for example bw(in bw 250). In this way, matrix is more effective on units with less hp and loses its effectiveness on units with many hp. This type of matrix could be the momentary counter, for the plague. Problems could be, in early game, spam matrix on marines. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
I never had any trouble vs mass muta because it just sucks vs bio/vessel. I watched your replay (because I'm at home now), imo it's just your opening that's bad, you let a greedy zerg be greedy, so ofc he bullies you in the mid/lategame. Your gas is too early, floating 200-300 gas in first 10 mins, no aggression towards him for the first 9 mins and when you arrive at his doorstep you don't commit when you catch him with his pants down (he had 6 zerglings, 2 spines and a queen ready, that's all). You then transition into tanks which helps vs what? The rest of the game is just a mess because no one could do anything in your position from that moment on. Just try this opening: rax - CC - 2 rax, pump marines/scv's, move out at 6-7 mins ingame with a group of marines and couple scv's, look for a third, if he has one, punish, if he hasn't got one, pressure some and go home. When you move out, take your gas(ses), add 2 techlabs and a reactor and get either more raxes/engi bays/work your way up to vessels, combination of these, choose your own timings. This opening is much better for putting down pressure, medics and stim don't help much when your army consists of approx 15 supply, pure marine with couple scv's as meat shield is much harder to defend against, especially if you abuse terrain. | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
| ||
|
Danko__
Poland429 Posts
Also, i dont think that combat shield of marine should lower "direct" damage, like from DT attacks, ultras, etc, only lower splash damage. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
I think it is important that replays gets discussed and analyzed by a various numbers of people to accelerate the "figuring out the game" proces. Basically, since there are no VODS of hundreds of pro's playing the game and a relatively few amount of games gets played on a daily basis, we need to theoretize quite a lot about Starbow in order to figure about proper balance and design rather than just relying on personal experience as they can be biased in regard to one playing against inferior opponents or the opponent not understanding the game properly. I always try to figure out whether the game will be entertaining + balanced once it gets figured. This is of course a very difficult task, hence I believe having these kind of discussions are so important for the future development of Starbow. FYI I don't intend to push Starbow into the direction that suits my subjective preferences in terms of the playstyle I want to play. Rather, I want to push Starbow into the direction that will create the most interesting games once it gets figured out. Anyway, you bring up two arguments; My opening You claim my build is bad, but wouldn't you agree that if we look at worker/army count/expansions going into the midgame --> We are quite even? Like when I land my 3rd we have equal supply/equal worker count/somewhat equal tech. So I assume that you (indirectly) imply that terran needs to be ahead going into the midgame for the game to be even. Furthermore you argue that I should have moved in with my force rather than just pressure. Assuming that was the correct decision, then I would be ahead going into the midgame (though I am pretty sure I shouldn't have moved in for a variety of reasons which I find somewhat irrelevant to discuss further in this post). Regarding your suggested build; Do you base this suggestion on your personal experiences playing against zergs who doesn't know the proper response? I mean this opening is very scoutable, so I have a very difficult time seing this build being the "equilirbrium" build once the game gets figured out. When that is said my build definitely has room for improvement, but unless you think the terran needs be ahead going into the midgame, I think it is much less of a deal than you imply. Tanks Did you read one of my follow up posts, where I stated that the key to beating mass mutas is cutting tank production? There is no doubt that with pure bio + viking/SV's can beat mass muta play. The reason for me choosing to build tanks in that game was that I didn't have maphack so I couldn't see his exact unit composition through the whole game, and I believed that having tanks was neccesary to deal with blings + a potential tech transition. But obviously since then I have realized that I should not start tank produciton untill I have great reason to believe he has a powerfull ground army. That leads me to a follow up question; You imply that bio + SV's can beat any zerg composition in the midgame. But assuming pure bio wasn't very viable against heavy bling/fewer mutalisks in WOL, why is that any different know? Sure SV's are nice, and zerg production is nerfed, but no mules seems to be a potential even larger nerf to bio (?). So the zerg should be capable of scouting (with his inital mutalisks) that you go tankless bio, and then make a proper response (bling heavy). So my question is, what makes Starbow so different from WOL to make you convinced that a tankless strat is viable vs a an equally skilled/intelligent zerg? Now my second question is regarding your gameplan. What do you do in the case the game goes to lategame and the zerg gets an insane muta count and you try to defend multiple location at once? Do you A) Believe that stim + irradiate is a reliable counter to that? B) Base your gameplan on never getting to that state by simply army trading over and over? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
On March 04 2013 01:21 Danko__ wrote: Imho better way of fixing matrix should be keeping %dmg reduction but setting cap (like ~200 dmg) it can absorb. This way it will be still versatile but not so op on high hp units. Also, i dont think that combat shield of marine should lower "direct" damage, like from DT attacks, ultras, etc, only lower splash damage. Hmm yeh that would actually reward players for using matrix on marines to defend ultralisks? Actually I have also thought about the idea of giving the medi 3-4 matrix's (assuming it gets nerfed considerable in other ways) which would be reward high APM during battles (because you would often need to matrix like 15+ bio units during a battle). When that is said I don't really have any preferences regarding which direction matrix is changed as long as it will make terrans less cost effective. | ||
|
Zain3
Sweden45 Posts
i kinda feel like you just change something when it didnt work, or when the game goes in someones favour as it should becuase of whatever(your mistakes/his mistakes etc etc) let it be and see how it evolve.. much more fun.. Keep up with the streaming guys.. always a nice time watching you play  | ||
| ||
