|
Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army.
For a long time BeSt dominated BW PvP at a crazy high level by basically rushing to arbiter and abusing stasis in a manner very similar to how forcefields get used in SC2, so there is some precedent from BW for hard crowd control playing a major role for some builds and matchups.
|
As a zerg player I've always been somewhat suspect of the unit but as time goes by I like it less and less. I hate the idea of the unit because it feels like I'm playing a custom map of tug-of-war or something. Beyond that it becomes a snore fest in certain situations. For instance I just watched two games of ZVT (Zenio VS Goody) with Goody playing mech and Zenio trying not to die with swarmhosts. I wanted to jam forks in my eyes it was so boring because you have constant waves of free units spawning into constant tank fire where they would all die before even getting to the tanks. It got slightly more interesting when Zenio tried to use vipers and some mutas to snipe tanks but that was also quickly shut down. basically you just get a split map stand-off that feels like it goes forever until the map is mined out or until someone is so bored they just give up and try to make something happen which usually ends in their death because they broke first.
I Really Really Really Really hope that Mech VS Swarmhost never becomes the dominant meta game.
Edit: Also, when playing with them the only time I have felt like they were actually useful in a way that couldn't have been better done with another unit is in ZVP in the specific situation where you are trying to be aggressive and snipe a toss 3rd or 4th. It allows you to throw away you'r roach/ling army basically guaranteeing you'll at least snipe the expo with the relative safety of rebuilding swarmhost/corrupter and sitting in your fixed defense until you can morph in some broodlords. That is of course assuming toss didn't go sky toss. Nydus plus swarmhost can be fun to play and watch but it's gimmicky and won't work if scouted. I just don't see enough non-boring uses for it to make me wanna either play or watch anyone play with them. I feel like it is the wrong direction for zerg. Viper yes, swarm-host no!
|
On February 02 2013 22:13 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 21:47 SWPIGWANG wrote:
As for battlefield shaping abilities, I thought those were very well liked AS LONG AS is it does not impede enemy's control of his own units, especially on retreat? Defensive/blocking abilities like Vulture Mines, Lurkers have been desirable features, and no one ever complained about wall ins and likes. It is lockdown abilities like force field, fungal and concussive shell that is annoying because the remove the option to retreat and give the attacker the advantage that is annoying. Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army. "Free units" would be fine ... if they were far and few between, but in SC2 everything comes in HUGE NUMBERS. That is the reason why the free units are actually terrible, because they wouldnt fall into the terrible "battlefield shaping category" if there were just 3-4 on a screen every time.
As I (and others) have explained already, Terrans form of space control is with raw firepower. You seem to be trying to convince others that tanks, widow mines, etc, do not shape the battlefield... if that's the case then how come you have to approach Terran far differently than you have to for other races? It's 100% true that they do shape the battlefield.
Furthermore, you say Lurkers didn't shape the battlefield, this is ignorant to the fact that many of the key BW strategies revolved around good Lurker usage and they were one of the strongest timings Zerg had in the game. That's shaping the battlefield for sure too.
These Terran units not only cause you to have to approach them far differently for the entire rest of the game, but they give Terran some dominant timings during the game? That's the key factor that you need in a unit to make it a strong unit that controls the battlefield - give it some dominant timings and some usage for the entire game - what else do you really want more than that?
Your also ignoring how strong the new HSM is at controlling a battlefield. If you do a high number HSM at once you force the enemy to back out or die. Again, controlling space with raw firepower.
Also, your completely twisting the reality of the situation. "Fungals and nearly endless supplys of Infested Terrans"... That's like saying Ravens have HSM and nearly endless supplies of Auto Turrets. If that really possible when you use energy on one or the other? Not to mention you can destroy the eggs before they hatch pretty easily, and even though the turrets cost more energy they have 3x more health and do more damage. Not to mention you can't stick around to even attempt to destroy them with a number of HSM coming at you.
Maybe when HSM was more easily dodgeable you would have an argument, but with the current HSM's range and targeting if used correctly you CAN CONTROL THE BATTLEFIELD. This isn't even taking in to consideration that you can flank with hellions or drop hellbats or drop turrets behind the enemy to guarantee they can't get out of range of a number of HSM.
Your posts have so much Terran bias it's ridiculous. Terran doesn't only control space, but also has free units of their own, yet you apparently despise how Zerg and Protoss (both) control space and (both) have their own forms of free units.
|
On February 03 2013 08:58 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 22:13 Rabiator wrote:On February 02 2013 21:47 SWPIGWANG wrote:
As for battlefield shaping abilities, I thought those were very well liked AS LONG AS is it does not impede enemy's control of his own units, especially on retreat? Defensive/blocking abilities like Vulture Mines, Lurkers have been desirable features, and no one ever complained about wall ins and likes. It is lockdown abilities like force field, fungal and concussive shell that is annoying because the remove the option to retreat and give the attacker the advantage that is annoying. Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army. "Free units" would be fine ... if they were far and few between, but in SC2 everything comes in HUGE NUMBERS. That is the reason why the free units are actually terrible, because they wouldnt fall into the terrible "battlefield shaping category" if there were just 3-4 on a screen every time. As I (and others) have explained already, Terrans form of space control is with raw firepower. You seem to be trying to convince others that tanks, widow mines, etc, do not shape the battlefield... if that's the case then how come you have to approach Terran far differently than you have to for other races? It's 100% true that they do shape the battlefield.
Siege Tanks and Lurkers DONT shape the battlefield, because YOU can CHOOSE to run into them. You can NOT choose to "bypass a Forcefield" or "run through a wall of Broodlings" or "run out of the Fungal lock". That is a HUGE difference, because CHOICE is NOT GIVEN for the Broodlings/ITs, Forcefield and Fungal while IT EXISTS for Siege Tank and Lurker.
Get your definitions right, because a threat does not prevent you from doing an "unwise thing" and thus Siege Tanks and Lurkers are not shaping the battlefield. They allow you to control space, but that is a totally different thing.
Its all about CHOICE really and abilities which deny choice are bad but rather plentiful in SC2. The only regularly used "total denial ability" in BW was Stasis and that was kinda acceptable because the Arbiters werent mass-produced like Infestors or Broodlords but rather support units AND it provided full immunity to the affected units.
On February 02 2013 23:25 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army. For a long time BeSt dominated BW PvP at a crazy high level by basically rushing to arbiter and abusing stasis in a manner very similar to how forcefields get used in SC2, so there is some precedent from BW for hard crowd control playing a major role for some builds and matchups.
The Arbiter is a hugely expensive unit which doesnt really do much damage on its own. Compare this with the Infestor or Broodlord and you have two CORE UNITS with hard crowd control and that is a totally different ballgame. SC2 suffers A LOT from having "massive numbers of units" and being able to generate them in huge numbers really bad due to the ability to deny and block an opponent.
As I said somewhere above ... free units wouldnt be such a problem if they were far and few inbetween, but since Blizzard has chosen to design SC2 around massive numbers of units they are.
|
On February 03 2013 16:42 Rabiator wrote:
Siege Tanks and Lurkers DONT shape the battlefield, because YOU can CHOOSE to run into them. You can NOT choose to "bypass a Forcefield" or "run through a wall of Broodlings" or "run out of the Fungal lock". That is a HUGE difference, because CHOICE is NOT GIVEN for the Broodlings/ITs, Forcefield and Fungal while IT EXISTS for Siege Tank and Lurker.
Get your definitions right, because a threat does not prevent you from doing an "unwise thing" and thus Siege Tanks and Lurkers are not shaping the battlefield. They allow you to control space, but that is a totally different thing.
Its all about CHOICE really and abilities which deny choice are bad but rather plentiful in SC2. The only regularly used "total denial ability" in BW was Stasis and that was kinda acceptable because the Arbiters werent mass-produced like Infestors or Broodlords but rather support units AND it provided full immunity to the affected units.
It is shaping the battlefield, just in a different way. Are you really trying deny that the terms of the battlefield don't change immensely once those 4 tanks on top of the hill go in to siege mode, or those Lurkers burrow? That's not even taking in to consideration that both Lurkers and Siege tanks could be used in many methods where you will be taking damage without yet seeing the units.
If you want to try to act like choice makes a difference in the matter, then I could say you can "choose" to go in range of those Sentrys or those Infestors too. You know the spells are coming, same as Zerg and Protoss know the Terran AoE is coming. So you have a choice all the same.
And I see you ignored the entire part I posted about Raven. It forces the opponent to back the hell off or get blown the hell up. Notice how you couldn't even claim they don't shape a battlefield? And HSM is not only space control, but a HUGE amount of firepower, all in 1 spell - more than you can say for the current Fungal by far. But you selectively stayed quiet about that just to try to make Terran look like they are at a disadvantage in this aspect. Funny...
Well, I guess by your definition, maybe you could say they don't shape a battlefield either because you can "choose" to not run and have your entire army blown up? Yet even that's not true, because good use of them makes sure they can't get out of range of the explosion.
The Arbiter is a hugely expensive unit which doesnt really do much damage on its own. Compare this with the Infestor or Broodlord and you have two CORE UNITS with hard crowd control and that is a totally different ballgame. SC2 suffers A LOT from having "massive numbers of units" and being able to generate them in huge numbers really bad due to the ability to deny and block an opponent.
Are you seriously comparing a non combat unit to two combat spellcasters? Is that supposed to be a valid or logical comparison? That's like comparing a Warp Prism to a Raven... Would that be a logical comparison?
How about comparing the Infestor to the Terran equivalent, Raven. Infestor has a space controlling ability and a "free unit" ability. Raven has a space controlling ability and a "free unit" ability. Where, exactly, is the problem?
Furthermore, as I explained in an earlier post, the proper term in this game would be "space control" rather than crowd control. Terran controls space through raw AoE firepower for anything coming in to the area that they have deployed (HSM is a perfect example, along with tanks, widows, etc). The other races space control doesn't do anywhere near the frontloaded direct damage such as this. That is the trade off.
And a Broodlord is completely NOT the definition of "hard crowd control".
As I said somewhere above ... free units wouldnt be such a problem if they were far and few inbetween, but since Blizzard has chosen to design SC2 around massive numbers of units they are.
I notice you also ignored the fact that Ravens can make free units with 3x the health, more damage, lasts for 6x the duration (more with upgrades), and doesn't have a buffer time that they could be destroyed like infestor eggs do. Oh, and they work great for guaranteeing the enemy army can't evade HSM.
If free units are such a problem to handle, maybe you should start using them more. You can block a path far better with those than you could with the squishy Infested Terrans...
|
On February 03 2013 23:17 Spyridon wrote:
I notice you also ignored the fact that Ravens can make free units with 3x the health, more damage, lasts for 6x the duration (more with upgrades), and doesn't have a buffer time that they could be destroyed like infestor eggs do. Oh, and they work great for guaranteeing the enemy army can't evade HSM.
If free units are such a problem to handle, maybe you should start using them more. You can block a path far better with those than you could with the squishy Infested Terrans...
Auto-turrets aren't good at any of those things. This is actually somewhat illuminating in the free units discussion: auto-turrets, because of their size, can never get very good DPS (partly because you can't clump them tightly, and partly because of the high energy cost. They should, however, be better for walling; After all, Just 4-8 auto-turrets should be able to block most ramps.
But no one uses them for that, or for any other purpose really. Part of that is because they're hard to place, since you have to click in the exact right places on the building grid, so it would be really difficult to throw down clutch auto-turrets in the heat of battle. But a much bigger part is because while many people in this thread are making a big deal of how free units can wall off space and constrict movement, they're virtually always more useful for DPS than walling. Sure that one Zerg blocked that one Protoss from getting his archons into the vortex by throwing down a wall of infested Terrans between them, but usually you just toss out a clump of infested terrans and let them do damage.
I wasn't gonna post again, but I had to disagree on this point: auto-turrets do not work great for ensuring your opponent cannot evade HSM. That's such a convoluted and absurd micro trick. Maybe if your opponent is retreating up a ramp with nothing at the top, sure. But for 99% of cases that's completely impractical.
|
On February 04 2013 09:21 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 23:17 Spyridon wrote:
I notice you also ignored the fact that Ravens can make free units with 3x the health, more damage, lasts for 6x the duration (more with upgrades), and doesn't have a buffer time that they could be destroyed like infestor eggs do. Oh, and they work great for guaranteeing the enemy army can't evade HSM.
If free units are such a problem to handle, maybe you should start using them more. You can block a path far better with those than you could with the squishy Infested Terrans... Auto-turrets aren't good at any of those things. This is actually somewhat illuminating in the free units discussion: auto-turrets, because of their size, can never get very good DPS (partly because you can't clump them tightly, and partly because of the high energy cost. They should, however, be better for walling; After all, Just 4-8 auto-turrets should be able to block most ramps.
That's one of my points exactly. The complaints here were about them blocking path, and even going so far as to say it's "hard CC". Yet the turrets block a path far better than Infested Terrans do.
Part of that is because they're hard to place, since you have to click in the exact right places on the building grid, so it would be really difficult to throw down clutch auto-turrets in the heat of battle. But a much bigger part is because while many people in this thread are making a big deal of how free units can wall off space and constrict movement, they're virtually always more useful for DPS than walling. Sure that one Zerg blocked that one Protoss from getting his archons into the vortex by throwing down a wall of infested Terrans between them, but usually you just toss out a clump of infested terrans and let them do damage.
I wasn't gonna post again, but I had to disagree on this point: auto-turrets do not work great for ensuring your opponent cannot evade HSM. That's such a convoluted and absurd micro trick. Maybe if your opponent is retreating up a ramp with nothing at the top, sure. But for 99% of cases that's completely impractical.
That's really not true. You can shift queue a line of 6 or so of them as easily as you can a line of infestors, which these people obviously have had happen to them before if we're to believe what they claim is true. Except as you said, its far easier to wall off with the Turrets since they are way bigger, and even block the path of all units between them unless you have holes, and a 1 distance hole is only going to let Lings escape anyway and no other units.
More importantly, if you have more than 1 or 2 seekers coming at you, realize you only have 5 seconds to attempt to separate ALL the targets from the others. You don't even need to fully block a solid path behind the opponent - same way as a protoss player doesn't have to fully block the escape path with shields. If there's holes in the wall that's completely fine, because all the units will bunch up trying to escape from the same one.
Try pointing out 5+ different units that have a HSM coming at them and escaping thru a wall, even with holes in it, within 5 seconds.
Try it in an AI game or a unranked game. Make like 5-6 Ravens, when your opponent attacks flank your opponent and shift queue a line of like 5-6 turrets, then use the rest of your energy on HSM each on different targets while your enemys stuck behind your units and your turrets. Not very hard to do, and watch the results.
Raven really is an amazing spellcaster unit now, possibly even more deadly than a Science Vessel used to be, since it's not limited to only bio units. And so far from what I've seen, they seem to be a staple in both Z and P matchups now. It's not only proven very useful vs Zerg (1-2 of them are enough to kill the primary AA units that will be used to kill the science vessels), but from the TvP replays I've seen they been the best method of fighting the Protoss air ball.
|
Canada11327 Posts
It is shaping the battlefield, just in a different way
That difference is a substantial one however.
Rather than shaping the battlefield, another way of describing what is happening is I am controlling your units. That is a complete FF surround boxes in your units so now I control your units and you have no control over them. (They can't move.) Or Stasis- I freeze your units. I control them, you can't move them at all. Any slow ability operates on the same idea. You lose some (not complete) control of your unit and I dictate the speed of your units by casting Fungal. Similarly my Broodlords control your units because it mucks up the pathing making it difficult for your units to push through.
Lurkers and Siege Tanks do no such thing. Certainly they project power on the field and force reactions from players. No-one will deny that. But what they do not do is physically control your units either by outright stopping them or slowing them down. Very different, very different.
The argument follows that these abilities are not bad in and of themselves. But if too much of the game is me controlling your units, then it becomes a frustrating experience. Even if you in turn spend your time controlling my units, neither of us feel like we can properly control our own army because it is always being interfered with.
The difference between this and Stasis or lockdown for instance is how easy and how prevalent it is in SC2.
|
On February 04 2013 11:31 Falling wrote:That difference is a substantial one however. Rather than shaping the battlefield, another way of describing what is happening is I am controlling your units. That is a complete FF surround boxes in your units so now I control your units and you have no control over them. (They can't move.) Or Stasis- I freeze your units. I control them, you can't move them at all. Any slow ability operates on the same idea. You lose some (not complete) control of your unit and I dictate the speed of your units by casting Fungal. Similarly my Broodlords control your units because it mucks up the pathing making it difficult for your units to push through.
But you also have to factor in HSM on top of the Terran units such as Siege Tank or Widows. That is a substantial difference for the Terrans side as well, which has seemed to have been ignored in all of the Terran responses.
If Terran was able to freeze or root units with that type of ability, it would basically be an unavoidable nuke blowing up your whole army. Zerg nor Protoss has nothing that's capable of that type of destruction, that's a Terran exclusive strength to their way of controlling space.
Also, think of the synergy with the units such as Tank that you just described. Sure, if you have a line of HSM coming at you, you can move, but if the HSM are shot as the battle is starting to engage, the choice is A) stay and get blown up, or B) Run (which, btw, is Terran having control over your units) and attempt to get every unit that was targeted away from the rest of your army).
This problem is compounded by the fact that the Zergs path could be blocked, or with appropriate positioning you could trap the Zerg player on the terrain. Fitting in with Terrans theme of "positional advantage".
Also lets not forget what was just discussed above, that Terran can use turrets to physically block pathing as well.
Taking all of these Terran unit/abilities alone won't seem like a strong advantage at controlling space. But look at how every single one of these units mentioned has a huge amount of Synergy with each other. As a whole, Terran has a huge amount of space control in HotS.
I keep saying it, properly used Ravens are amazing now, and were probably by far the biggest buff Terran received in HotS. Their very strong vs Zerg, their very strong vs the Protoss deathball. And I wouldn't be surprised if they were amazing in TvT as well since Terran aren't exactly known for their mobility.
|
Canada11327 Posts
I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing. It is immaterial to me whether Terran has similar abilities or not. I don't think I was dealing with balance issues. The issue I was jumping in on was whether a constant stream of free units/ FF/ Fungals had the same impact on unit control as Siege Tanks and Lurkers.
And the answer to that is a resounding no. In no way does a tank shot hinder your ability to micro your unit (unless it dies of course, but that's to be expected.) Even HSM doesn't control your units in that way. The ideal would be to run and spread out just as the ideal against tanks would be to spread. But here is the crux of the difference. HSM does nothing hinder doing you that. It forces a goal upon you. (Run and spread.) But it doesn't effect the means to do so. Slow or Freeze in place.
And that's the issue I was having in your argument against Rabiator. 'Forcing' (it actually isn't forced per se, you can choose not to react) a reaction (new goal) is very different than preventing you from carrying out that goal (means) by physically gumming up your units with free unit that mess up pathing or slow spells or stun spells. No choice at all. Especially with stuns, you just gotta hope after the stuns where off you still have some units.
Consider the difference between Thor splash and Fungal vs Muta. Thor splash forces the reaction for Muta to split to avoid damage. (New goal.) Fungal prevents you from doing so (means). One you can continue microing to your hearts content. The other, the other player is actually controlling your units and directly preventing them from moving.
Now free units have their place, but it seems to me that they have become too predominant. Not in terms of balance. We will always find a new balance. But in terms of how much free units dictate gameplay.
|
On February 04 2013 13:17 Falling wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing. It is immaterial to me whether Terran has similar abilities or not. I don't think I was dealing with balance issues. The issue I was jumping in on was whether a constant stream of free units/ FF/ Fungals had the same impact on unit control as Siege Tanks and Lurkers.
And the answer to that is a resounding no. In no way does a tank shot hinder your ability to micro your unit (unless it dies of course, but that's to be expected.) Even HSM doesn't control your units in that way. The ideal would be to run and spread out just as the ideal against tanks would be to spread. But here is the crux of the difference. HSM does nothing hinder doing you that. It forces a goal upon you. (Run and spread.) But it doesn't effect the means to do so. Slow or Freeze in place.
And that's the issue I was having in your argument against Rabiator. 'Forcing' (it actually isn't forced per se, you can choose not to react) a reaction (new goal) is very different than preventing you from carrying out that goal (means) by physically gumming up your units with free unit that mess up pathing or slow spells or stun spells. No choice at all. Especially with stuns, you just gotta hope after the stuns where off you still have some units.
Consider the difference between Thor splash and Fungal vs Muta. Thor splash forces the reaction for Muta to split to avoid damage. (New goal.) Fungal prevents you from doing so (means). One you can continue microing to your hearts content. The other, the other player is actually controlling your units and directly preventing them from moving.
Now free units have their place, but it seems to me that they have become too predominant. Not in terms of balance. We will always find a new balance. But in terms of how much free units dictate gameplay.
You can argue that it doesn't hinder your ability to move, which is true, but as I said a number of times that's against the whole concept of Terrans space control as a race. Terran control space through direct damage, raw firepower, and positional strength, rather than with CC.
The difference is, with Terran, if you don't move (or if your not able to move), your dead. You can say that's a choice, but it really isn't. This is also ignoring the fact that you can physically block their path. If you say that's a choice, then I can say you simply have the choice to avoid all the Zerg "free units".
Comparing to Zerg here, Zerg doesn't have spells that do instant damage such as this. Fungal does 30 damage. HSM does over 3x as much with a single missile. And the more HSM you shoot at once it gets exponentially more dangerous, because it puts the opponent in a spot where it's impossible to avoid all of them, leading to huge casualties.
Also your Thor vs Fungal comparison is a little bit illogical, considering in both situations, unless ur fighting a single thor or infestor, it's ideal to spread BEFORE you enter the fight, not after, otherwise the frontloaded damage would be done already when facing a Terran. Same with Mutas vs Widows. Both races are in the same ideal situation - if you don't spread first you are putting yourself in danger.
Furthermore, back to the free unit argument when it comes to using free units as CC, how come it's focused on Zergs free units, when time and time again it's been brought up that Terrans free units block a path far better, with more hp, for a longer duration, and even if you just buy yourself 1-2 seconds it guarantees that HSM will hit effectively making the Terran form of controlling space superior if you micro correctly? Not to mention if you use your positional advantage correctly, the enemy won't be able to avoid the HSM even without turrets?
|
Canada11327 Posts
So then there is a difference as Terran is about controlling space through damage (well not really if it's bio, but whatever) and how many of the stun spells that P and Z are designed around. The point is the heavy emphasis on stun/pathing CC in SC2 is not as fun to play against. It's alright, but it should be toned down a bit.
Thor and Fungal comparison works perfectly well. Yes the ideal situation would be to spread prior to contact. But supposing you don't, against the Thor you can still pull out albeit somewhat damaged. The same is not true with Fungal. Once caught, you're caught and you need to wait. Similar example. Muta stack and Irradiate. Naturally the ideal thing would be to separate before you are irradiated, but because stacked muta are so good, the Science Vessel can often catch the mutas stacked. So the Zerg must separate during/ after Irradiate is damaging their units. And they can do that because they haven't been stunned or slowed. As fast as you can separate is as fast as you can minimize the damage. And there is nothing hindering the means to do so.
And that's the problem with a heavy emphasis on stun/pathing CC. Everything must be pre-split, pre spread or BAM you are caught and stuck. It lends itself to very ON/OFF abilities rather than continued micro. The interesting thing is continued micro from beginning to end rather than micro, battle starts, spells lockdown units and you are forced to micro your remaining units and hope for the best. In general, the longer you can micro your own units throughout the entire battle (not just pre-battle) the more crazy shenanigans and comebacks are possible.
Again, not to say there is no place for CC. The place has simply grown overlarge.
Why Z and free units? Maybe because they have three units built around spawning them? If it is about stun/pathing CC in general, then I am very happy to talk about FF's, concussive shells and the like. (And Vortex's- thank goodness those are getting nixed.)
|
On February 03 2013 23:17 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 16:42 Rabiator wrote:
Siege Tanks and Lurkers DONT shape the battlefield, because YOU can CHOOSE to run into them. You can NOT choose to "bypass a Forcefield" or "run through a wall of Broodlings" or "run out of the Fungal lock". That is a HUGE difference, because CHOICE is NOT GIVEN for the Broodlings/ITs, Forcefield and Fungal while IT EXISTS for Siege Tank and Lurker.
Get your definitions right, because a threat does not prevent you from doing an "unwise thing" and thus Siege Tanks and Lurkers are not shaping the battlefield. They allow you to control space, but that is a totally different thing.
Its all about CHOICE really and abilities which deny choice are bad but rather plentiful in SC2. The only regularly used "total denial ability" in BW was Stasis and that was kinda acceptable because the Arbiters werent mass-produced like Infestors or Broodlords but rather support units AND it provided full immunity to the affected units. It is shaping the battlefield, just in a different way. Are you really trying deny that the terms of the battlefield don't change immensely once those 4 tanks on top of the hill go in to siege mode, or those Lurkers burrow? That's not even taking in to consideration that both Lurkers and Siege tanks could be used in many methods where you will be taking damage without yet seeing the units.
Great ... lets just explain for you then since you seem to have problems with the term of "battlefield" and what it means ...
The BATTLEFIELD consists of the map and on it there are cliffs, ramps and "untraversable areas". Thus the BATTLEFIELD defines where ground units can go and can not go.
Consequently "battlefield shaping abilities" are those which block / restrict movement like Forcefield (which makes it obvious by creating a big dome of crystal) but also includes Fungal Growth (which locks down friendly units and makes an area unpassable for other of your units) AND also includes Broodlings from a Broodlord (which surround a clump of your units and thus prevent them from moving).
Now before you argue that "surrounded units being immobile is the same as if they were surrounded by Zerglings" I would say that the Zerglings are a) not in an endless supply and b) did cost resources.
So any of your "off-topic arguments" about the Seeker Missile (which ISNT a Heat Seeker or Hunter Seeker Missile btw.) are useless. This is strictly about free units and why they are terrible in SC2. They are, because there are too many of them and in that amount they behave exactly like a "battlefield shaping Forcefield" by blocking passage.
People have complained about the Forcefield since the "beginning of time" (about three years ago) and it still is a problem because it limits the creativity of mapmakers, because narrow chokes become too powerful of a weapon for the Protoss. The same is true for the stupid Broodlings and Infested Terrans and Swarm Host free stuff (which is only kept in check by spawning only once in a blue moon, but that makes it weak again). A decent number of Broodlords doesnt even need a choke to block off a large number of opposite units and they are easily supported by the "leak-closing Infestors" and their two battlefield shaping abilities.
Battlefield shaping abilities are anti-fun, because they are based on "denial of skill" of your opponent. Thats the whole point ...
|
On February 04 2013 14:06 Falling wrote:
So then there is a difference as Terran is about controlling space through damage (well not really if it's bio, but whatever) and how many of the stun spells that P and Z are designed around.
I've been saying since the beginning it's controlling space, just in a different way. Rabiator said the argument of it not being hard CC, but in all iterations of Starcraft (SC1, BW, WoL, or HotS) the proper term would be controlling space rather than CC.
Thor and Fungal comparison works perfectly well. Yes the ideal situation would be to spread prior to contact. But supposing you don't, against the Thor you can still pull out albeit somewhat damaged.
Not true if you have more than 2 Thors, that equals instant death. Or if you have a Widow along with a Thor or 2.
Regardless, if you have a substantial amount of Infestors or Thors, it's ideal to spread first.
And that's the problem with a heavy emphasis on stun/pathing CC. Everything must be pre-split, pre spread or BAM you are caught and stuck. It lends itself to very ON/OFF abilities rather than continued micro. The interesting thing is continued micro from beginning to end rather than micro, battle starts, spells lockdown units and you are forced to micro your remaining units and hope for the best. In general, the longer you can micro your own units throughout the entire battle (not just pre-battle) the more crazy shenanigans and comebacks are possible.
Again, not to say there is no place for CC. The place has simply grown overlarge.
Why Z and free units? Maybe because they have three units built around spawning them? If it is about stun/pathing CC in general, then I am very happy to talk about FF's, concussive shells and the like. (And Vortex's- thank goodness those are getting nixed.)
It's ideal for all races to be pre-split, not just against Zerg. Even DB mentioned this in the most recent video. According to him it's intended to be that way. Watch the 3rd vid in the recent HotS preview on this site.
Just because Zerg has multiple units that spawn them doesn't mean their the best at using it for CC, especially when the topic is about using them to block paths.
In response to your lalst paragraph it shouldn't be "just" about stun/pathing CC, it should be about how the overall concept and mechanics of controlling space for each race works as a whole. That's the only way this would be a valid argument against Zerg or any other race, and if you look at how the race works at a whole, all three races having their forms of free units as protection that fits the concepts of the races as a whole, their unique versions of space control forms an interesting dynamic with how each races strengths clash with each other, rewards opponents for splitting their armies, and encourages micro for both sides (even though some of you here are disagreeing with this, spreading your units before you go in to combat is micro, and leads to more micro throughout the battle).
On February 04 2013 14:23 Rabiator wrote:
So any of your "off-topic arguments" about the Seeker Missile (which ISNT a Heat Seeker or Hunter Seeker Missile btw.) are useless. This is strictly about free units and why they are terrible in SC2. They are, because there are too many of them and in that amount they behave exactly like a "battlefield shaping Forcefield" by blocking passage.
That shows nothing but ignorance about how HotS works. Because the free units are Zergs method of space control, so if you want to do a valid comparison between races, you have to take that in to consideration against Terrans methods.
That's the problem here. You don't like the way Zergs space control works and want it to change, but have no problem with Terrans method of space control, which includes free units. You go so far as to claim it's an off topic argument, when it's the Terran equivalent. That's nothing but Terran bias.
|
On February 04 2013 14:32 Spyridon wrote:
all three races having their forms of free units as protection
Which one is the "Terran free unit"?
Please dont bother with "autoturret", because it simply costs too much to be useable. Its twice the energy of an Infested Terran AND the unit is more expensive than an Infestor AND it has less useful other abilities. Thus the Raven isnt mass-produced as the Infestor is and cant be mass produced as Zerg can because Terrans only get one out for every Starport with Tech Lab - which cost a lot of gas to build in the first place - every cycle, which is MUCH slower than "1 for every larvae I have".
|
On February 04 2013 14:38 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 14:32 Spyridon wrote:
all three races having their forms of free units as protection Which one is the "Terran free unit"? Please dont bother with "autoturret", because it simply costs too much to be useable. Its twice the energy of an Infested Terran AND the unit is more expensive than an Infestor AND it has less useful other abilities. Thus the Raven isnt mass-produced as the Infestor is and cant be mass produced as Zerg can because Terrans only get one out for every Starport with Tech Lab - which cost a lot of gas to build in the first place - every cycle, which is MUCH slower than "1 for every larvae I have".
Twice the energy, but 3x the hp, no 4-5 second spawn time with the eggs that they can be destroyed, much larger area blocked by it, and lasts for over 6x the duration, meaning energy for energy they block paths far better, and Ravens cost only 50 more gas than an Infestor. Yeah its a little more cost, but they block a path far better as well with the same amounts of energy so the extra cost is earned.
Ravens are much more common, and much stronger, in HotS than they were in WoL, and will help you immensely in both TvZ and TvP (unsure about TvT).
And the Missile is an incredibly strong ability, your insane to say it has less useful other abilities. Just goes to show you haven't taken advantage of them in HotS yet, which may be why you have so many complaints about them. Because your missiles do both control space and a huge amount of damage, which is even stronger than pre-nerf Fungal used to be, and has an incredible amount of synergy with Ravens other abilities.
BTW, as I suggested before, try an unranked game making 5-6 Ravens with your army, flank your opponent with them, shift queue a line of 5-6 turrets behind your opponent, sandwiching them between your enemy and the turrets/army, and use the rest on missiles on different targets. Watch how it goes. Until you see this in action, you really shouldn't be complaining about free units OR space control.
Also, just drop 5-6 turrets alone in ur base, and try to walk through them, and watch how much room each covers and how well they block paths.
|
I don't get why people keep making these flimsy arguments for free units. It undermines the need for economy and gives zerg FAR too much value for their mineral/gas expenditure. I just don't get the fun in having massable SUPPORT units and broodlings immobilizing or distorting pathing for entire armies. It goes back to people arguing to keep FFs. People are broken down to thinking that because they like watching units being killed with no room to react that those things are good design and belong in the game. There is almost no value to things like broodlings or massable ITs or FFs. It's always something really dubious being used to argue for those things.
It's not about watching big armies smash into other blobs of big armies and huge aoe affects. Sooner or later you need to design a well made RTS with solid fundamentals. Making it harder to express individual skill in a FUN and enjoyable way for both the players and viewers should be the biggest goals, then statistical balance within those confines of good design. Starcraft 2 at times feels like a big elaborate presentation where all the fancy effects and visuals were added first, then someone told blizzard they need some substance and added the actual information the night before it was due.
|
Canada11327 Posts
@Spyridon. If turrets really have become as spammable as broodlings and infested terran, than I would/will argue against it just as much. I don't particularly care who has the spammable free units that block pathing. This is not racial balance to me. All I care is there is too many things hindering micro during the battle. (And perhaps terrible, terrible damage is another cause- but that's a separate issue. Regardless, critical mass that one shots units is not in opposition to my point. It stands to reason that if a unit doesn't exist anymore one can't micro it. That has nothing to do with pre-critical mass.)
Pre-battle split micro is great. I love it. It exists in most RTS'. But micro during the battle is just as important rather than having controlability come to a grinding halt due to spammable stuns, slows, and free units.
|
On February 04 2013 15:01 Serpico wrote:
I don't get why people keep making these flimsy arguments for free units. It undermines the need for economy and gives zerg FAR too much value for their mineral/gas expenditure. I just don't get the fun in having massable SUPPORT units and broodlings immobilizing or distorting pathing for entire armies. It goes back to people arguing to keep FFs. People are broken down to thinking that because they like watching units being killed with no room to react that those things are good design and belong in the game. There is almost no value to things like broodlings or massable ITs or FFs. It's always something really dubious being used to argue for those things.
Dubious, in my opinion, is arguing about the other races versions of space control, but having no problem with their own.
I'd call an argument against free units (which is zergs version of space control) that doesn't take in to consideration their own races versions, a flimsy argument against free units.
I'm still waiting for one that mentions Terrans free units, plus Terrans free workers (mules), plus their own mechanics for controlling space, as well as the power of their newly revamped spellcaster, which is arguably more powerful than all the other races equivalents, and that unit itself creates free units as well.
In other words, you want both Zerg and Protoss to function exactly how Terran works, which would mean both other races play "Terrans" game of fighting with frontloaded raw firepower. You really think that would be fair, or entertaining to watch, if all races had similar functionality and played Terrans current gameplan?
|
On February 04 2013 15:11 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 15:01 Serpico wrote:
I don't get why people keep making these flimsy arguments for free units. It undermines the need for economy and gives zerg FAR too much value for their mineral/gas expenditure. I just don't get the fun in having massable SUPPORT units and broodlings immobilizing or distorting pathing for entire armies. It goes back to people arguing to keep FFs. People are broken down to thinking that because they like watching units being killed with no room to react that those things are good design and belong in the game. There is almost no value to things like broodlings or massable ITs or FFs. It's always something really dubious being used to argue for those things.
Dubious, in my opinion, is arguing about the other races versions of space control, but having no problem with their own. I'd call an argument against free units (which is zergs version of space control) that doesn't take in to consideration their own races versions, a flimsy argument against free units. I'm still waiting for one that mentions Terrans free units, plus Terrans free workers (mules), plus their own mechanics for controlling space, as well as the power of their newly revamped spellcaster, which is arguably more powerful than all the other races equivalents, and that unit itself creates free units as well. In other words, you want both Zerg and Protoss to function exactly how Terran works, which would mean both other races play "Terrans" game of fighting with frontloaded raw firepower. You really think that would be fair, or entertaining to watch, if all races had similar functionality and played Terrans current gameplan?
You're making some sloppy comparisons that don't really support your point. Interrupting pathing and even the ability to move is absurd. You're also creating this completely false and fictitious danger to the game, that if you don't have free units that act as space control you homogenize the races and get a boring game. Space control is an integral, but not all important, balancing dominating part of the game. You also need to stop putting words in people's mouths to suit your argument. No one is saying things like mules are great for the game while broodlings are, either. I don't know where you're getting these things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
