| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On August 24 2009 08:06 LosingID8 wrote: the queen makes zerg broken. protoss macro when you get to late game is so ridiculously easy, it's kind of funny. Did you use the obelisk? What was your impression: Chore or Awesome? | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
1 - How do you think the metagame (although we barely have a clue what that means at this point) would change, IF the macro mechanics were taken away? I ask this question because a few things have occurred to me after watching the latest exhibition matches: 1 - Maybe SC2 feels SO fast because the macro mechanics give you the equivalent of an early expo without sacrificing early production of combat units. 2 - Maybe the Zerg are weak mid-game because the queen discourages the safe single or double expand typical of SC1 zerg in the super early game. What do you guys think? | ||
|
Response
United States1938 Posts
On August 24 2009 07:59 Archerofaiur wrote: I recongnize your point. Thats were most of these macro debates go: to the theoretical diferences. So yes while a probe does require some choice for when to build the big picture is that your still building probes repeatedly just like using the obelisk. I am not sure which matter more, the minor but theoretical differences or the big picture how it plays feeling. When you build a probe you are losing minerals to start with to eventually produce more minerals faster than you could if you didn't have that probe, its an initial set-back that has long term benefits. When you build a supply depot you lose minerals and have to stop mining with an scv to build it, when you expand you are putting yourself at a disadvantage for the time being because of the economic advantage you will have later, these are all give and take things that must be balanced appropriately or you will become overwhelmed by your opponent, and whoever balances them best will almost always come out the victor. By making an ability that will always allow you to mine more minerals faster without any consequences or always produce more units without any consequences, there is no balance, its simply a forced task you must complete to stay level with your opponent. If you make it cost minerals or force you in some other way to initially put yourself at a disadvantage for a long term gain, than that is an ability worth having in a competitive game. If you put tasks in a game where you must always perform them for the best outcome, you are taking much of the strategy out of a strategy game. at least thats my opinion | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
at least thats my opinion totally there with ya | ||
|
naonao
United States847 Posts
On August 24 2009 08:24 GoSuPlAyEr wrote: When you build a probe you are losing minerals to start with to eventually produce more minerals faster than you could if you didn't have that probe, its an initial set-back that has long term benefits. When you build a supply depot you lose minerals and have to stop mining with an scv to build it, when you expand you are putting yourself at a disadvantage for the time being because of the economic advantage you will have later, these are all give and take things that must be balanced appropriately or you will become overwhelmed by your opponent, and whoever balances them best will almost always come out the victor. By making an ability that will always allow you to mine more minerals faster without any consequences or always produce more units without any consequences, there is no balance, its simply a forced task you must complete to stay level with your opponent. If you make it cost minerals or force you in some other way to initially put yourself at a disadvantage for a long term gain, than that is an ability worth having in a competitive game. If you put tasks in a game where you must always perform them for the best outcome, you are taking much of the strategy out of a strategy game. at least thats my opinion Building the obelisk is akin to expanding. Its an initial investment that will reward you later. You have to decide if you wish to spend the minerals on units, on probes, on tech, or on an obelisk so that you can use the photon charge that will allow your probes to mine faster later on. | ||
|
starPride
United States142 Posts
On August 24 2009 08:24 GoSuPlAyEr wrote: When you build a probe you are losing minerals to start with to eventually produce more minerals faster than you could if you didn't have that probe, its an initial set-back that has long term benefits. When you build a supply depot you lose minerals and have to stop mining with an scv to build it, when you expand you are putting yourself at a disadvantage for the time being because of the economic advantage you will have later, these are all give and take things that must be balanced appropriately or you will become overwhelmed by your opponent, and whoever balances them best will almost always come out the victor. By making an ability that will always allow you to mine more minerals faster without any consequences or always produce more units without any consequences, there is no balance, its simply a forced task you must complete to stay level with your opponent. If you make it cost minerals or force you in some other way to initially put yourself at a disadvantage for a long term gain, than that is an ability worth having in a competitive game. If you put tasks in a game where you must always perform them for the best outcome, you are taking much of the strategy out of a strategy game. at least thats my opinion ye cause theres none of this in sc. Things that they force u to do so u can get ahead of ur opponent. | ||
|
houseurmusic
United States544 Posts
| ||
|
starPride
United States142 Posts
On August 24 2009 08:19 0neder wrote: So, as someone who hasn't played the game yet, I have a question: 1 - How do you think the metagame (although we barely have a clue what that means at this point) would change, IF the macro mechanics were taken away? I ask this question because a few things have occurred to me after watching the latest exhibition matches: 1 - Maybe SC2 feels SO fast because the macro mechanics give you the equivalent of an early expo without sacrificing early production of combat units. 2 - Maybe the Zerg are weak mid-game because the queen discourages the safe single or double expand typical of SC1 zerg in the super early game. What do you guys think? Any player can scv micro perfectly with a small amount of practice *atleast in early game* to not miss an scv to mineral patch.... | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
-MBS..... was really helpful.However what was really annoying about it is that I couldn't find a way to set the default building. When I hit 55 to go back to my main it would end up going to some random hatchery. I gave read 2 different reports of how this works exactly. The first claimed that camera goes to the closest building to your current view And the second claimed that it goes to the biggest cluster of selected buildings. | ||
|
owlman
France58 Posts
In that case you'll got no disavantage staying in your main/natural base | ||
|
starPride
United States142 Posts
On August 24 2009 09:57 owlman wrote: It seems that you need less expo to build up a large army in sc2 ,isn'it ? In that case you'll got no disavantage staying in your main/natural base its impossible to judge that until we've played ;D | ||
|
lepape
Canada557 Posts
On August 24 2009 09:01 houseurmusic wrote: Well I would say the biggest decision I had to make about the queen was whether to do a hatch first FE build or a pool first build. If you think about the queen opens the door to a lot of interesting builds/strategies much like terran's salvage ability. I found that the Queen made FE much less viable in SC2, simply because of course you need spawning pool to make her, then she acts as a second hatchery herself pretty much, allowing 4 extra larvaes/25 seconds or so (idk how it compares to the production rate of an hatchery), and the early pool allows you to put pressure on your opponent on top of that, only for 50 minerals more (250+150 vs 350 mins). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any situation where hatch first would be better than pool first. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On August 24 2009 10:17 lepape wrote: I found that the Queen made FE much less viable in SC2, simply because of course you need spawning pool to make her, then she acts as a second hatchery herself pretty much, allowing 4 extra larvaes/25 seconds or so (idk how it compares to the production rate of an hatchery), and the early pool allows you to put pressure on your opponent on top of that, only for 50 minerals more (250+150 vs 350 mins). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any situation where hatch first would be better than pool first. Well Hatch first would be better if you wanted to have an expansion early.... a Second hatchery in your base though... that is no longer good. Questions for those who played the blizzcon build Is there a limitation on how many Queen's you can build (besides the mineral+supply cost)? One Queen can continuously spawn larva on two hatcheries and not run out of energy? Does the Proton charge Stack? (if you cast it twice immediately on probes to they get a longer duration than if you cat it once?) It does seem like Mule-Comsat is the only balanced one... although that will become clear in the beta. The Queen's heal+Creep colony can probably be balanced by lower energy costs The Obelisk's other abilities seem less balancable given their limited range. | ||
|
AlienAlias
United States324 Posts
Well Hatch first would be better if you wanted to have an expansion early.... a Second hatchery in your base though... that is no longer good. Questions for those who played the blizzcon build Is there a limitation on how many Queen's you can build (besides the mineral+supply cost)? None that I know of. I built around 5 one match just because I knew I was going to lose and wanted to try it. | ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
Most of the pro players (nada, savior) were playing P. imo, P is the most similar to sc1 units, and the progamers would like that because...well, they can't read english. the queen basically gives you another hatch, and allows zerg to have way way too many larvae. Hotbid loved 1 hat hydra, and it seemed really really broken. Zatic (i think?) tried forge first fe, and hotbid had 30 hydra in front of P's base when the third cannon (before nex) finished. I tried 1 base T against hotbid's Z, and I think that you could marine in bunker to fend off early agression, into sieged tank in mineral line. that assumes that you scout 1 hat 1 base hydra, and forces you to not be able to upgrade the mule. It didn't work for me though, as i accidently walled off my tank from my mineral line. in general, the major takeaway point that i got from the sc2 stuff was that it still feels like sc. MBS and automine felt like they didn't really lower the skill ceiling, and it didn't really affect the game that much. I'm more worried about the hard counters of the game - 8 micro'd thors get trashed by 48 lings >.> and thors are something like 200 min 300 gas..? | ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On August 24 2009 08:09 Archerofaiur wrote: Did you use the obelisk? What was your impression: Chore or Awesome? It's a good build order macro mechanic. at the pro level, it's just going to be another task, and they'll have the timing down perfectly. It should make the build orders quite interesting, with the choices between the dark pylon thing, the gas's, and unit/gateway tech choice. Charge btw (i saw this earlier in the thread) seems way too expensive, at something like 200 min 200 gas. Marine maruder is really good against protoss - as it's the easiest way to play, it feels like it's also the weakest. | ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On August 24 2009 14:57 AlienAlias wrote: None that I know of. I built around 5 one match just because I knew I was going to lose and wanted to try it. you can build as many as you want i think. It feels like the optimal number (depending on base distances) is going to be 1 for every 2 hatches. The "increase larvae" mechanic requires the queen to be at a new hat once every 20 seconds. So if your queen can get to your nat in 10 seconds, and then back, you can spawn new larvae every 20...Although i bet you run into a mana problem. for us anyway, it looked like you needed 1 queen per hat optimal. | ||
|
lepape
Canada557 Posts
On August 24 2009 14:48 Krikkitone wrote: Well Hatch first would be better if you wanted to have an expansion early.... a Second hatchery in your base though... that is no longer good. The main advantage of going FE is to get more larvae so you can build more workers, and since mineral saturation is not such a big deal early game, Queen can now accomplish that almost just as well. I think FE would only be viable for gas heavy builds so you can get 3rd and 4th gas asap, then tech to lair for mutas or infestors most probably. | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
The queen spawn larvae ability was extremely useful. I don't know why everyone has been complaining about zerg because I found them to be very good. You can power drones so easily with queens and still be relatively safe, then run over your opponent mid game. The obelisk was ok as well. It didn't really feel like a chore, and they definitely pay for themselves quickly. It's a good enough idea that opens up different build orders and keeps you from being able to play the game without ever looking back at your base, which was the point of the macro mechanics. | ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On August 24 2009 15:41 lepape wrote: The main advantage of going FE is to get more larvae so you can build more workers, and since mineral saturation is not such a big deal early game, Queen can now accomplish that almost just as well. I think FE would only be viable for gas heavy builds so you can get 3rd and 4th gas asap, then tech to lair for mutas or infestors most probably. well, because the queens give you so many larve, you can make it so that you reach saturation really really quickly. The hatches work a lot more like nex/cc's in that they allow you to get access to more patches/gas, and there are so many larvae that zerg can just get much much more supply. Apparently, chill/hotbid compared supply earlygame, and zerg was at like 60, and T was at 40 (I think? anyone can correct me if necessary). | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
