|
The problems I don't think Blizz staff even consider are things like map control - yeah, someone can 'survive' an early rush by turtling but wow are there problems with that. Here's a list of issues with P and PvZ based on my own playing (14 games as P at blizzcon)
1) Now Protoss is forced to play like terran with a wall-in?
2) You have to build a second gateway, just because you might die if you don't? With 1, it's a given, but 2 and you're /really/ making the entirety of toss early game a necessarily uncreative and boring thing. This does not promote originality, not only in the early game but in the whole game as the starting BOs are so relevant to everything thereafter.
3) If you have to use workers to defend something, your economy is going to crap, and a skillful player (the likes of which Blizzard's entire staff does not have you can really damage their economy; if not by worker kills then by delaying their mining. So Blizzard is saying, okay guys, you can desperately defend this while suffering economically to do so.
4) The lack of scouting capability for anyone trapped in the necessary gameplay of turtling. Playing without scouting was for 1998 Bnet BGH games. For a real game, it's vital.
5) Zerg gets map control. Let me repeat, Zerg Gets Map Control. I don't think Blizz understands that decent players actually understand this concept and that getting map control so severely is likely to turn into a guaranteed win. Survival often means delaying in this game. It wouldn't be so bad, perhaps, if scouting was an option still, or if completely basic mechanics from SC1 like dropships still existed.
6) I don't think these guys understand Tempo, either
7) Psionic storm is worse. So clustered groups of hydras etc aren't exactly susceptable to it anymore unless the player wielding them is bad and/or the player with psi-storm is a magician. Psi-storm is a critical part in toss vs hydras (and lurks, who can probably survive a second storm now just by unburrowing and moving, since the casting delay) and now that isn't there.
8) DTs and HTs come from seperate buildings now, even though both were oft vital for a PvZ match. So just to get DTs you have to spend money on the seperate building for just that and since that's obviously not going to happen in priority over HTs, say goodbye to DTs helping to keep zerg bases and economies down. Oh, and don't forget the lack of dropships, making DTs and HTs even more useless at harassing economy.
9) Immortals are so bad. Look at how fast zerglings are. Why would the zerg ever let their lings get hit by that piece of crap? And when they have map control, you can't exactly just put it in their base and force them to deal with it.
Now, SC2 is a different game, yeah yeah, but it plays much the same aside for these mechanics like the queen altering things up dangerously. If you look at the changes to the races and then considered Z vs P or T in sc1, you'd understand that Z just got a huge boost with the lack of medics, DTs, sairs (no air buildings right after cybercore), reavers, and toss shuttles. And that they can control the map and stop scouting in at least the vs P match-up. Now, that would be glaringly obviously imbalanced for SC1, but this is SC2, so we can't be sure it's imba. But, it doesn't mean it can't be, and it definitely looks that way.
The staff for wc3 stopped patching that game a long time ago, and of course most anyone frlom sc1 and its patching are likely even more long gone than for wc3. Who the hell did Blizzard dig up to try and make this an esport? The gameplay has been dumbed down into some obvious (and poor) attempt to make the gameplay a bunch of turtling and mass unit fights. Hopefully players can fix this during the beta, and that the expansions will eventually vary things up enough.
I could complain about a lot more things in SC2 but I'll try to cut this off, I doubt many are going to read this anyhow on page 5 or 6 of a thread.
|
On September 09 2009 02:05 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 21:33 Amph wrote:
yeah, but if u expand, and u must expand for have advantage over u enemy, mean that also the opponent will expand...cuz he know that u have to expand to have a real advantage; i'm sure u can't win 1 base vs 1 base...and also u can't deny the t and p FE Everything in this post is wrong. You can't attack P because he is holding his ramp, as soon as he tries to expand he is going to get runover by zerglings. You can win 1 base vs 1 base and in fact that's the entire basis of the huge article written by Hot_Bid.
u can't win 1vs1 base if toss/terran does all the thing right and is not a braindead person...this cuz u saturate your base and then u haven't any advantage anymore(saturation of 9 mineral patch is 20-22 workers i think, so even if u have 50 worker u still get the exact same mineral of 20 workers...), i have calculate that when u saturate your mining the t/p player have at least 16 workes(20 are needed for saturation), so is impossible that u get a real advantage, not to mention the workers that u lose for buildings...and not to mention that idra require gas too, if we see the scenario that hot_bid describe... he write "20 idra vs a few rines", this is impossible man...by the time u have 20 idra i have at least a good amount of rauders and rine, this because there are gas limitation involving in one base
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On September 09 2009 02:24 Amph wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2009 02:05 Chill wrote:On September 08 2009 21:33 Amph wrote:
yeah, but if u expand, and u must expand for have advantage over u enemy, mean that also the opponent will expand...cuz he know that u have to expand to have a real advantage; i'm sure u can't win 1 base vs 1 base...and also u can't deny the t and p FE Everything in this post is wrong. You can't attack P because he is holding his ramp, as soon as he tries to expand he is going to get runover by zerglings. You can win 1 base vs 1 base and in fact that's the entire basis of the huge article written by Hot_Bid. u can't win 1vs1 base if toss/terran does all the thing right and is not a braindead person
Indeed if the other player plays perfectly you will not win. Brilliant!
this cuz u saturate your base and then u haven't any advantage anymore(saturation of 9 mineral patch is 20-22 workers i think, so even if u have 50 worker u still get the exact same mineral of 20 workers...)
What are you talking about? The strength of Zerg is in flexibility and deception. If you invest into defending my hydralisks, and I didn't make them, you are behind. If I did, we are even. That's the point. On top of this, Zerg has perfect scouting via overlords, while Protoss has to guess. All these problems happen much, much earlier than worker saturation.
i have calculate that when u saturate your mining the t/p player have at least 16 workes(20 are needed for saturation), so is impossible that u get a real advantage, not to mention the workers that u lose for buildings
Wow, that's fantastic. Mind telling me how you calculated that? Because I've literally been working on it for 2 days and I'm only at the ~2:00 mark with around 12 Drones mining. How did you just calculate that up?
and not to mention that idra require gas too, if we see the scenario that hot_bid describe... he write "20 idra vs a few rines", this is impossible man...by the time u have 20 idra i have at least a good amount of rauders and rine, this because there are gas limitation involving in one base
Hydralisks require 50 gas to make the building, 150 gas for the upgrade. After that, 20 hydralisks cost 500 gas. Imagine how long it takes you to mine 500 gas in brood war - not that long. Further, you can't get gas as early because you don't have any many spare workers as Zerg.
Anyways, this entire discussion is ridiculous. The Zerg strength comes from the flexbility to make either a ton of Drones, a ton of units, or any ratio in between. No other race can do that, and it's a huge advantage for Zerg. People arguing that they can beat 1 base Zerg are completely missing the point.
|
Lumi: The Phase Prism is also a shuttle.
|
why u talk always about p, and not t? i think t with FE can compete vs the queen injection ability, u can't deny an fe , i can make a fast wall in the natural choke(if the map have it) with 1 bunker and 1 rax with scv provide repair and mining from 2 expo then i building marauder
p.s if u have 12 drone at 2 min i have also 12 scv, cuz u can't morph a queen before 10-12 workers...
so we have the same number of workers until the queen arrive(12vs12) and if u calculate that u lost some drones to morph building u get your saturation when i have at least 16 worker, easy...
On September 09 2009 02:49 Chill wrote:
What are you talking about? The strength of Zerg is in flexibility and deception. If you invest into defending my hydralisks, and I didn't make them, you are behind. If I did, we are even. That's the point. On top of this, Zerg has perfect scouting via overlords, while Protoss has to guess. All these problems happen much, much earlier than worker saturation.
1 base vs 1 base u CANNOT WIN, it's impossible due to the saturation of the mineral, when u saturate your mineral u get an advantage(thanks to the queen) of 5-7 workers...then u have no advantage when i also reached the saturation, It would be like trying to produce from 8 rax with one base...so if i make a tough wall with depot and rax and u can't destroy even if u have a superior army...and then when i also reached the sturation, we become equeal
User was banned due to his inability to heed warnings, invest the time to accurately read the conversation in which he was participating, and type in a manner that easily conveys his message.
|
On September 09 2009 03:32 Amph wrote:why u talk always about p, and not t? i think t with FE can compete vs the queen injection ability, u can't deny an fe , i can make a fast wall in the natural choke(if the map have it) with 1 bunker and 1 rax with scv provide repair and mining from 2 expo then i building marauder p.s if u have 12 drone at 2 min i have also 12 scv, cuz u can't morph a queen before 10-12 workers... so we have the same number of workers until the queen arrive(12vs12) and if u calculate that u lost some drones to morph building u get your saturation when i have at least 16 worker, easy... Show nested quote +On September 09 2009 02:49 Chill wrote:
What are you talking about? The strength of Zerg is in flexibility and deception. If you invest into defending my hydralisks, and I didn't make them, you are behind. If I did, we are even. That's the point. On top of this, Zerg has perfect scouting via overlords, while Protoss has to guess. All these problems happen much, much earlier than worker saturation. 1 base vs 1 base u CANNOT WIN, it's impossible due to the saturation of the mineral, when u saturate your mineral u get an advantage(thanks to the queen) of 5-7 workers...then u have no advantage when i also reached the saturation, It would be like trying to produce from 8 rax with one base...so if i make a tough wall with depot and rax and u can't destroy even if u have a superior army...and then when i also reached the sturation, we become equeal
In that case, the zerg can outmacro, since drone powering takes much less time. The overlord will tell whether the terran is committing resources to an FE or to a 'secret' (walled) timing attack. Now there might be a point if terran early/mid game is as strong as a superior-economy zerg early/mid game but that would completely lock the matchup in one direction.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
Well, I guess you can respond when you are unbanned  .
On September 09 2009 03:32 Amph wrote:
why u talk always about p, and not t?
Umm, I'm not doing it on purpose, it just came up in this discussion.
i think t with FE can compete vs the queen injection ability, u can't deny an fe , i can make a fast wall in the natural choke(if the map have it) with 1 bunker and 1 rax with scv provide repair and mining from 2 expo then i building marauder
Let's imagine for a second that you are right, that there is a map that can be walled off with a barracks and bunker and that is solid against zerglings and you recover fast enough to defend hydralisks. I don't believe it, but let's assume. So the Zerg sees this, takes 2 more bases and adds a queen to each. You've just made your situation worse. You can't beat Zerg in a straightup "macro for 10 minutes and then fight" game. This is the situation where I went 1 Marine FE against Hot_Bid. He had 60 supply when I had 40. Unless an equally-suppled Zerg army is significantly weaker than the other races in SC2, expanding and macroing will put you further behind.
p.s if u have 12 drone at 2 min i have also 12 scv, cuz u can't morph a queen before 10-12 workers...
This quote right here shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the game. Even Brood War. For any non-Zerg race doing a "macro buildup", the limiting factor is time, since one worker needs to wait for the last one to finish. Zerg's limiting factor is larvae, which is related to time, but not directly. Zerg will have 12 drones before you have 12 SCVs. There is no way to deny this, since you get 50 minerals faster than 17 seconds (the build time of a worker). This isn't really a big point in SC2 balance, but it's a big point in showing you aren't making rational sense.
so we have the same number of workers until the queen arrive(12vs12) and if u calculate that u lost some drones to morph building u get your saturation when i have at least 16 worker, easy...
That doesn't make sense, since I have 7/3's faster production of workers due to the queen. On top of this, my larvae allow me to make the initial workers more quickly. Also, it has been shown in BW that saturation occurs between 23 and 25 workers for a 9 mineral patch base, depending on the setup and race.
On September 09 2009 02:49 Chill wrote:
What are you talking about? The strength of Zerg is in flexibility and deception. If you invest into defending my hydralisks, and I didn't make them, you are behind. If I did, we are even. That's the point. On top of this, Zerg has perfect scouting via overlords, while Protoss has to guess. All these problems happen much, much earlier than worker saturation.
1 base vs 1 base u CANNOT WIN, it's impossible due to the saturation of the mineral, when u saturate your mineral u get an advantage(thanks to the queen) of 5-7 workers...then u have no advantage when i also reached the saturation, It would be like trying to produce from 8 rax with one base...so if i make a tough wall with depot and rax and u can't destroy even if u have a superior army...and then when i also reached the sturation, we become equeal
I don't think you truly understand how long it takes to reach saturation. 25 workers + 6 on gas = 31 workers. How long does it take you to make 31 workers in SC2? Assuming you never miss one and subtracting the initial 6, that's t(S) = (31-6)*17 = 425. So 425 seconds or 7 minutes. That's a long time. So, sure, we are equal at the 7 minute mark, but you are playing with a handicap from when my queen spawns (~3 minutes) until 7 minutes. You're okay with that? Leads in economically-driven RTS games compound significantly after the beginning. This is why SC has boiled down to fast expanding with minimal defense, even to the point of pulling SCVs off gas when they aren't immediately necessary. And after all that, you're okay playing four of the first seven minutes behind?
|
Woo for starcraft 2 being designed with a complete "Counter"'s in mind. 9pool doesnt immediately beat 14cc, but now, 6 lings into 1hatch hydra means its zerg versus two terran races. Map control might be important.
Dev says
no itz not op!11, u just hav 2 build 2 gatre, on a map with small ramp so 1 zealot can leik kill 3/6 lings. itz ez pz111. Seriously, 6 lings vs 1 zealot. So dumb. Worse than 1gate tech vs 3hatch ling and you forget to get gas.
|
On September 09 2009 06:33 Phayze wrote:
Woo for starcraft 2 being designed with a complete "Counter"'s in mind. 9pool doesnt immediately beat 14cc, but now, 6 lings into 1hatch hydra means its zerg versus two terran races. Map control might be important.
Dev says
no itz not op!11, u just hav 2 build 2 gatre, on a map with small ramp so 1 zealot can leik kill 3/6 lings. itz ez pz111. Seriously, 6 lings vs 1 zealot. So dumb. Worse than 1gate tech vs 3hatch ling and you forget to get gas.
Might I remind you SC1 has many many BO auto win/loss. I find people are putting SC1 on the proverbial pussy pedastool, and overlooking foundational SC1 knowledge.
We can't really speak on balance as everyone has only played on a map or two. Map factors into balance as much, or if not more than the other factors involved. Let's take a step back before you start calling things "dumb".
|
Lumi a few of the things you said are out of date, psi storm was buffed, prism is a shuttle, immortals were never meant to counter zerglings, though I agree the map control situation would be alarming.
I think if this ends up being a problem they'll just reduce the cost of the nullifier (is it still 50/100 ?) It can take out overlords and is alround a great unit for putting the pressure on Z.
edit: would this really remove open-base maps completely ? Walls are nice but variety is also nice...
|
its funny to read theorycrafting after theorycrafting... i prefer to belive in those who actually have played the game (or game to be).
what i understood from HB article was that Z can deny scout and force defence in P and T early game (much like in BW), but without loosing much macrowise (unlike in BW), scout for Z keeps the same thx to Ovies.
an from that its obvious that Z has won an advantage (possibly unfair), an advantage that even if Z cant capitalize early game will give them more an more advantage (eventually the win) over time.
|
But starcraft did not have a direct counter to every build, The game isnt X beats y, and its definately not You MUST x for a chance to beat y. The dev telling us you have to 2gate and defend are forced to defend 6 zerglings with 1 zealot and you have to wall, plus have to kill 3 zerglings with probes and the 2 zealots coming after the fact is dumb.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On September 09 2009 07:34 Phayze wrote:
But starcraft did not have a direct counter to every build, The game isnt X beats y, and its definately not You MUST x for a chance to beat y. The dev telling us you have to 2gate and defend are forced to defend 6 zerglings with 1 zealot and you have to wall, plus have to kill 3 zerglings with probes and the 2 zealots coming after the fact is dumb.
Do you realize how many builds have evolved throughout StarCraft?
|
On September 09 2009 08:04 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2009 07:34 Phayze wrote:
But starcraft did not have a direct counter to every build, The game isnt X beats y, and its definately not You MUST x for a chance to beat y. The dev telling us you have to 2gate and defend are forced to defend 6 zerglings with 1 zealot and you have to wall, plus have to kill 3 zerglings with probes and the 2 zealots coming after the fact is dumb. Do you realize how many builds have evolved throughout StarCraft?
I think we might need to look at SC2 through a 1998 mindset rather then a 2009 one. For one I dont think you could steer this game to be exactly like SC1 if you tried.
You can have general things you want for the game. Like it should encourage economic competition or it shoud have multiple build orders early game. But nailing down a specific thing and saying that zerg have to be able to 2 hatch may not be realistic.
|
On September 09 2009 02:12 Lumi wrote:
The problems I don't think Blizz staff even consider are things like map control - yeah, someone can 'survive' an early rush by turtling but wow are there problems with that. Here's a list of issues with P and PvZ based on my own playing (14 games as P at blizzcon)
1) Now Protoss is forced to play like terran with a wall-in?
You don't have to wallin. Chokes with units and the disruptors force field work quite well.
2) You have to build a second gateway, just because you might die if you don't? With 1, it's a given, but 2 and you're /really/ making the entirety of toss early game a necessarily uncreative and boring thing. This does not promote originality, not only in the early game but in the whole game as the starting BOs are so relevant to everything thereafter.
Of course you need one gateway but you don't need to get the 2nd gateway right away.
3) If you have to use workers to defend something, your economy is going to crap, and a skillful player (the likes of which Blizzard's entire staff does not have you can really damage their economy; if not by worker kills then by delaying their mining. So Blizzard is saying, okay guys, you can desperately defend this while suffering economically to do so.
I don't know how you come to this conclusion or what you are referring to .
4) The lack of scouting capability for anyone trapped in the necessary gameplay of turtling. Playing without scouting was for 1998 Bnet BGH games. For a real game, it's vital.
There are plenty of scouting options, it isn't the same as SC1. You can scout zerg, you just have to move around the creep. By the time they get a queen you should have a good idea what's going on. Terran is the only race where its significantly difficult to scout, but you can test their wallin to gauge troops, observers only require a robo which is cheaper 200/100.
5) Zerg gets map control. Let me repeat, Zerg Gets Map Control. I don't think Blizz understands that decent players actually understand this concept and that getting map control so severely is likely to turn into a guaranteed win. Survival often means delaying in this game. It wouldn't be so bad, perhaps, if scouting was an option still, or if completely basic mechanics from SC1 like dropships still existed.
Zerg gets map control vs Protoss early/mid and same against terran in sc1. Equating map control with an auto victory is plain sillly.
6) I don't think these guys understand Tempo, either.
Another statement with nothing to back it up or logical reasoning.
7) Psionic storm is worse. So clustered groups of hydras etc aren't exactly susceptable to it anymore unless the player wielding them is bad and/or the player with psi-storm is a magician. Psi-storm is a critical part in toss vs hydras (and lurks, who can probably survive a second storm now just by unburrowing and moving, since the casting delay) and now that isn't there.
Sounds like you need more practice with the new psi storm. Units cluster much better in sc2 making storm just as good or better, even at 80 damage.
8) DTs and HTs come from seperate buildings now, even though both were oft vital for a PvZ match. So just to get DTs you have to spend money on the seperate building for just that and since that's obviously not going to happen in priority over HTs, say goodbye to DTs helping to keep zerg bases and economies down. Oh, and don't forget the lack of dropships, making DTs and HTs even more useless at harassing economy.
Lack of dropships? They're called warp prisms.
9) Immortals are so bad. Look at how fast zerglings are. Why would the zerg ever let their lings get hit by that piece of crap? And when they have map control, you can't exactly just put it in their base and force them to deal with it.
Not every unit is good against every other unit. Immortals are extremely effective against roaches and ultralisk.
Now, SC2 is a different game, yeah yeah, but it plays much the same aside for these mechanics like the queen altering things up dangerously. If you look at the changes to the races and then considered Z vs P or T in sc1, you'd understand that Z just got a huge boost with the lack of medics, DTs, sairs (no air buildings right after cybercore),
Stargate is right after cybernetics core and you can make the phoenix immediately.
reavers, and toss shuttles. And that they can control the map and stop scouting in at least the vs P match-up. Now, that would be glaringly obviously imbalanced for SC1, but this is SC2, so we can't be sure it's imba. But, it doesn't mean it can't be, and it definitely looks that way.
The staff for wc3 stopped patching that game a long time ago, and of course most anyone frlom sc1 and its patching are likely even more long gone than for wc3. Who the hell did Blizzard dig up to try and make this an esport? The gameplay has been dumbed down into some obvious (and poor) attempt to make the gameplay a bunch of turtling and mass unit fights. Hopefully players can fix this during the beta, and that the expansions will eventually vary things up enough.
I could complain about a lot more things in SC2 but I'll try to cut this off, I doubt many are going to read this anyhow on page 5 or 6 of a thread.
Your post is pretty inflammatory without much basis for your reasoning or sound logic. You're probably better off posting on the battle.net forums instead of here.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Bah, I haven't played the alpha builds, but I see there's a drastic change in the way zerg works and I'll try to elaborate.
In SC, Zerg has to tech. This is the key to understanding the zerg economy and zerg metagame as a whole and this is why many people fail to predict what the zerg is doing, because teching is not an economical issue for terran or protoss. See protoss, they have a zealot and a goon, two most used units. A zealot takes 400 ticks to builds while a goon takes 500. A zealot costs 100 minerals while a goon costs 125. See? No matter which one you build, your 1 gateway will waste exactly 25 minerals per 100 ticks (and that's 5-6 gateways per a saturated base depending on how many crystals it has and if you don't build anything other than units). With slight differences the same works out for terran, your production doesn't really depend on tech level. But zerg is drastically different! Economy-wise, every single zerg unit has the same buildtime. That leads to the zerg teching in a timely manner. To be more precise, zerg always needs to either tech or expand otherwise he is going to waste lots of minerals on hatcheries that don't serve any purpose other than building units.
I'll make this a point of stress. If we only take minerals and no "overlord overhead", it takes exactly four times(!) more hatcheries to spend your resources into lings than into ultralisks. Four times! This is basically the reason zerg rushes are that much all-in. Even if he manages to recover worker-wise, if he hasn't teched he will require an increasing number of hatcheries to keep building low-level stuff. Teching is a natural thing for zergs, they need it to survive and they experience a drastic increase in production capabilities once they strike a new technology plank. That was the very point behind the infamous (although outdated) 3 hatch muta - as soon as resources start to pile up, your spire is built and voila you start spending 100 minerals per larva instead of 50 and 3 hatches are again enough to spend your resources for a minute or two longer.
Now, take SC2. Suddenly, one hatchery per mining base is enough to satiate all your mining needs. Suddenly, you don't have to waste those minerals into hatches that don't do anything, because now timings allow you to only build a new hatch when you expand. This allows zerg to stay on low tech for a while longer without any long-term consequences. Well, just a while, maybe a minute. Every serious SC players knows that even a 30 second change in timings is killer.
What is the point of this post? Well, I wanted to stress that larva management affects the zerg metagame in more ways than one. Actually, it shapes the whole zerg metagame. I think it's a very sensitive mechanism changes to which are reflected quadratically or even qubically in changes to timings, because it affects flexibility, and both mining capacity and production capacity as shown in this post above, all at the same time. It's better left untouched.
On a side note, did anyone try overlord's spawn creep for a first in history zerg proxy tech? As far as I understood, this ability essentially allows you to build zerg buildings anywhere on the map, right? Or is the new surround that effective that hiding is not needed?
|
Calgary25980 Posts
Well, inject larvae is so good i doubt anyone brought the queen anywhere but to inject more larvae.
|
ling contain ----> power drones ez
|
maybe one could go for a spine crawler rush with creep drop for a timing attack before hydras.....
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On September 09 2009 10:11 SWPIGWANG wrote:
maybe one could go for a spine crawler rush with creep drop for a timing attack before hydras.....
You guys are ridiculous. Yes I could do that, or I could just inject larvae and end up 50% ahead in supply. COME ON PEOPLE, I know this is the SC2 forum but please use your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
