|
On February 25 2011 10:49 Noocta wrote:
The last daily make me quite enthousiastic about the game but...
I don't really think protoss and zerg can do the same type of strat "don't do a blob of units, be active, etc " like rainbow did...
:/
You can always try and fail gloriously or try and force it to work. Don't know until you troll ladder people with it 
|
I have a lot of respect for Day9, but i think he's completely wrong with this episode.
For one, i don't see how he can make a claim like "Sc2 sees less constant back and forth battles than BW because people build mixed compositions of units" when every single matchup in BW is characterized by mixed unit compositions. There's absolutely nothing "lean" about zealot/goon/HT/shuttle/reaver/obs/arbiter, yet it's the standard protoss composition vs Terran in BW. The only matchup you can even argue sees "lean" armies in BW is ZvZ, but that's mainly due to its generally short length. Even there, the core unit of the average ZvZ army, the muta, is a remarkably un-lean unit. Furthermore, whenever a ZvZ goes beyond Muta/Ling/Scourge, we see players add in units like queens, devourers, defilers, and lurkers, none of which seem to fit the "lean" characteristics day 9 is looking for. Therefore, it seems more logically sound to conclude that some other factor, such as maps, level of play, or game design can better account for the observed differences between BW and Sc2 gameplay than army leanness.
Furthermore, i find absolutely nothing exciting about the fact that a high level player was able to beat another (presumably) high level player in a long game by making almost nothing but tier 1 units. There can't have been much more than a dozen ghosts and marauders combined produced that game, which is sad. Day9 certainly did a good job arguing for why this strategy makes sense, so i don't fault Intotherainbow for using it. However, that a player can achieve such a convincing win in a high level long game by almost only making marines is more indicative of bad game design than good strategy. Higher tech units should be higher tech for a reason, and acquiring at least some of them should be necessary for a player to remain competitive as a game goes long. All matchups in BW are characterized by an escalation in tech, which creates all sorts of interesting relative timing windows and opportunities for aggression. Without that, no real evolution occurs over the course of the game, and fights at the beginning feature the same dynamics as those at the end. The only real dynamic shift in this game was when the toss acquired templars, and even that didn't change the terrans fundamental tactic of hitting him with a big force of marines, inflicting some damage, and chasing the survivors with his conga line of reinforcements. Compare that to BW, where almost every new unit added changes the dynamic. Early game BW zealot harass v marines is completely different from late game arbiter pushes vs tank lines, and the space between was filled with numerous other dynamic shifters. The BW terran getting siege, vulture upgrades, a counter-shuttle wraith, dropships, or vessles fundamentally changes how the toss needs to play against him, just like how the toss getting goon range, zealot legs, reavers, HT's, or arbiters fundamentally changes what the terran needs to do. However, in today's game the early harrassment was basically just a smaller scale version of the late game conflict, with the exact same tactical and strategic dynamics.
In short - day9's wrong, and however technically interesting or good intotherainbow's strategy this game was, it is still both booring and demonstrative of the flaws in Sc2's gameplay design.
|
Scotland380 Posts
2/24 Day[9] Daily #0264 Starcraft 2 PvT Analysis from Germany (Blip.tv)
2/23 Day[9] Daily Starcraft 2 Extra Daily - Commenting On iNcontroL's Stream (Blip.tv)
2/17 Day[9] Daily #0263 Starcraft 2 Checkin Out IdrA (Blip.tv)
2/16 Day[9] Daily #0262 Starcraft 2 Huk vs qxc (Blip.tv)
2/15 Day[9] Daily #0261 Starcraft 2 Newbie Tuesday: Mechanics #2 (Blip.tv)
2/14 Day[9] Daily #0260 Starcraft 2 Funday Monday: Contaminate This! (Blip.tv)
2/13 Day[9] Daily #0259 Starcraft 2 Live Q&A with Day[9] (Blip.tv)
2/09 Day[9] Daily #0258 Starcraft 2 Friendday Wednesday with iEchoic (Blip.tv)
2/08 Day[9] Daily #0257 Starcraft 2 Newbie Tuesday: Refining Mechanics (Blip.tv)
2/07 Day[9] Daily #0256 Starcraft 2 Funday Monday: Mass Queen! (Part 1) (Part 2)
2/06 Day[9] Daily #0255 Starcraft 2 Mondragon vs EmpireKas ZvT (Blip.tv)
2/03 Day[9] Daily #0254 Starcraft 2 Naama vs DIMAGA ZvT (Blip.tv)
2/02 Day[9] Daily #0253 Starcraft 2 Abver vs Mana PvZ (Blip.tv)
2/01 Day[9] Daily #0252 Starcraft 2 Secrets of Hotkeys, APM and Mouse Movement (Blip.tv)
1/31 Day[9] Daily #0251 Starcraft 2 Funday Monday: Audience Improv (Blip.tv)
1/30 Day[9] Daily #0250 Starcraft 2 Top Korean ZvZ (Blip.tv)
1/27 Day[9] Daily #0249 Starcraft 2 KiwiKaki vs XlorD PvZ (Blip.tv)
|
I heard somewhere that daily #252 was very usefull and judging by it's name it no doubt is. However, when i go to day9tv.blip.tv that one doesn't work. Any help?
|
|
|
Day[9] sounded a bit like Timmy this last daily. Probably something with the new mic.
|
deafhobbit you take this thing way way too serious.
its a isolated game which worked on that special occassion. day explained basic concepts in that extreme example. thats all there is to it. its not a "viable" strat or anything.
also how about mass stalkers?mass roach? the same tier 1 one unit spam and much much more common.
what about stuff in bw like mass hydra? goliath? hell i stomped worse players on pgt/wgt back then with pure upgraded lings just rallying em into the enemys base off 9234324 hatches.
also you give lategame examples mostly. a general tvp in sc2 too sees collosus,immortals,storm,archons and nowadays even phoenixes and motherships or rine,rauder,medivac,ghost,thor,vikings,banshee etc on the terran side. dont cherry pick examples that fit your argument.
i dont think sc2 is perfect and it has tons of design flaws evrywhere, esp the "power dynamic" that you talk about and that was so important in bw is way worse in sc2. but your post is way overblown and very biased and the daily or game you talk about has nothing to do with that.
|
I think it´s weird that marines are that good even without having the force-multipliers of medevac.
|
On February 25 2011 22:54 Forumite wrote:
I think it´s weird that marines are that good even without having the force-multipliers of medevac.
Well, Day[9] covered that concept specifically in this daily: (1) every unit is good, and (2) adding an additional unit type potentially cuts the effectiveness (but definitely the size) of the first unit(s).
From what I can tell from this daily, stalkers are pretty damned good in small numbers vs. marines, especially before they have stim. Those stalkers kind of went bananas for those first few minutes of the game.
|
BW fan grasping at straws to make SC2 look bad. How fresh and exciting.
|
On February 25 2011 23:13 VorcePA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 22:54 Forumite wrote:
I think it´s weird that marines are that good even without having the force-multipliers of medevac. Well, Day[9] covered that concept specifically in this daily: (1) every unit is good, and (2) adding an additional unit type potentially cuts the effectiveness (but definitely the size) of the first unit(s). Medevacs do lower marine DPS since there are a few less marines as the medevac takes resources, on the other hand the marines last MUCH longer in any battle that doesn´t involve primarily storms.
This game the gas went to ghosts, but they would last much longer with a medevac there too. It doesn´t take many of them, seeing as the Protoss had so few Anti-Air units.
|
On February 25 2011 13:13 deafhobbit wrote:
All matchups in BW are characterized by an escalation in tech, which creates all sorts of interesting relative timing windows and opportunities for aggression.
In short - day9's wrong, and however technically interesting or good intotherainbow's strategy this game was, it is still both booring and demonstrative of the flaws in Sc2's gameplay design.
I didn't play BW so i can't comment there, however when you say "All matchups in BW are characterized by an escalation in tech" this sounds more 1 dimensional that what we have seen in SC2, like it's just a race for higher tech units.
This episode was really full of some sophisticated concepts about how units work in different numbers. I understand why Colossi are good in big numbers, because splash dmg from 4 or 5 instantly kills lower tier units (same with tanks). However I can't really say i fully understand how marines or stalkers or phoenix or many other units scale up in effectiveness with numbers.
|
On February 25 2011 13:13 deafhobbit wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Day9, but i think he's completely wrong with this episode.
For one, i don't see how he can make a claim like "Sc2 sees less constant back and forth battles than BW because people build mixed compositions of units" when every single matchup in BW is characterized by mixed unit compositions. There's absolutely nothing "lean" about zealot/goon/HT/shuttle/reaver/obs/arbiter, yet it's the standard protoss composition vs Terran in BW. The only matchup you can even argue sees "lean" armies in BW is ZvZ, but that's mainly due to its generally short length. Even there, the core unit of the average ZvZ army, the muta, is a remarkably un-lean unit. Furthermore, whenever a ZvZ goes beyond Muta/Ling/Scourge, we see players add in units like queens, devourers, defilers, and lurkers, none of which seem to fit the "lean" characteristics day 9 is looking for. Therefore, it seems more logically sound to conclude that some other factor, such as maps, level of play, or game design can better account for the observed differences between BW and Sc2 gameplay than army leanness.
Furthermore, i find absolutely nothing exciting about the fact that a high level player was able to beat another (presumably) high level player in a long game by making almost nothing but tier 1 units. There can't have been much more than a dozen ghosts and marauders combined produced that game, which is sad. Day9 certainly did a good job arguing for why this strategy makes sense, so i don't fault Intotherainbow for using it. However, that a player can achieve such a convincing win in a high level long game by almost only making marines is more indicative of bad game design than good strategy. Higher tech units should be higher tech for a reason, and acquiring at least some of them should be necessary for a player to remain competitive as a game goes long. All matchups in BW are characterized by an escalation in tech, which creates all sorts of interesting relative timing windows and opportunities for aggression. Without that, no real evolution occurs over the course of the game, and fights at the beginning feature the same dynamics as those at the end. The only real dynamic shift in this game was when the toss acquired templars, and even that didn't change the terrans fundamental tactic of hitting him with a big force of marines, inflicting some damage, and chasing the survivors with his conga line of reinforcements. Compare that to BW, where almost every new unit added changes the dynamic. Early game BW zealot harass v marines is completely different from late game arbiter pushes vs tank lines, and the space between was filled with numerous other dynamic shifters. The BW terran getting siege, vulture upgrades, a counter-shuttle wraith, dropships, or vessles fundamentally changes how the toss needs to play against him, just like how the toss getting goon range, zealot legs, reavers, HT's, or arbiters fundamentally changes what the terran needs to do. However, in today's game the early harrassment was basically just a smaller scale version of the late game conflict, with the exact same tactical and strategic dynamics.
In short - day9's wrong, and however technically interesting or good intotherainbow's strategy this game was, it is still both booring and demonstrative of the flaws in Sc2's gameplay design.
You are totally missing the point. He didn't say lean production is the best or the only option. But if you do go for it you have to utilize its advantages which is mobility and numbers, and if you deviate from the lean production you have to sacrifice some of its advantages. That is the only point he wanted to make.
|
Characterized by an escalation in tech is definitely not as black and white as it sounds -- for example, in ZvZ there's a huge tug of war between: who will expand/lair/spire first safely while still maintaining zergling defense. Often times you'll see people get rolled over by lings as they tech. (same as in SC2)
It's definitely not a tech=win, it's way more strategic than that, obviously.
|
On February 25 2011 13:13 deafhobbit wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Day9, but i think he's completely wrong with this episode.
For one, i don't see how he can make a claim like "Sc2 sees less constant back and forth battles than BW because people build mixed compositions of units"
He didn't actually say that, IIRC. He said that the way the game works at the moment (read: metagame) is that each player spends a lot of time trying to perfect their unit composition until maxed. I don't think he even said that 'SC2 sees less constant back and forth battles than BW because of the game itself.'
The only thing about mixed compositions of units he said was that the more types of unit you have, the less total units you are likely to have. Simple as that.
What annoys me was just how effective and viable this strategy was - pumping mass Marines all game long (even into mid/late-game) should NOT be viable. Sure, as a pretty all-in rush at the start, but not all game long. This replay just screams bad game design to me - the Protoss player didn't do anything wrong, did a lot of things well and Day[9] even said that without bad rally points from Terran he would have won a lot earlier.
|
On February 26 2011 04:29 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 13:13 deafhobbit wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Day9, but i think he's completely wrong with this episode.
For one, i don't see how he can make a claim like "Sc2 sees less constant back and forth battles than BW because people build mixed compositions of units" He didn't actually say that, IIRC. He said that the way the game works at the moment (read: metagame) is that each player spends a lot of time trying to perfect their unit composition until maxed. I don't think he even said that 'SC2 sees less constant back and forth battles than BW because of the game itself.' The only thing about mixed compositions of units he said was that the more types of unit you have, the less total units you are likely to have. Simple as that. What annoys me was just how effective and viable this strategy was - pumping mass Marines all game long (even into mid/late-game) should NOT be viable. Sure, as a pretty all-in rush at the start, but not all game long. This replay just screams bad game design to me - the Protoss player didn't do anything wrong, did a lot of things well and Day[9] even said that without bad rally points from Terran he would have won a lot earlier.
The problem i see with it isn't so much as that mass marines won him the game, its that mass marines won him the game while making so many mistakes. At several points in the video you heard day 9 criticizing the Terran for aimlessly sacrificing marines due to bad rally points or mis-micros. You also heard him constantly saying things like how perfect the Protoss's storms were. I don't think the issue is that mass marines can win games. Its that mass un-upgraded (the upgrades were at 1/0 at the end of the game i believe) marines beat a protoss that arguably had better micro.
|
I was actually quite confused by the daily, because honestly what is protoss supposed to do? The protoss was also going for a very lean, mobile composition. It was chargelot/templar vs marine/ghost. Yet, terran was able to constantly be aggressive, and protoss seemed to be constantly catching up. The main difference seemed to be the beginning, where terran was able to cut gases.
This is something that just confuses me, because it seems to me like zerg and protoss simply can't do this sort of aggressive, low-tech style just because bio is so effective in medium numbers. Zerg really wants to overpower, and use all of its units at once. Zerg units are terrible in smallish numbers like that.
So yay, great. Terran can do all this fancy micro and such to be constantly aggressive, maintain map control, and never let the opponent expand. How could zerg and protoss do anything like that? How can zerg and protoss compete with that?
|
On February 26 2011 05:05 DoubleReed wrote:
I was actually quite confused by the daily, because honestly what is protoss supposed to do? The protoss was also going for a very lean, mobile composition. It was chargelot/templar vs marine/ghost. Yet, terran was able to constantly be aggressive, and protoss seemed to be constantly catching up. The main difference seemed to be the beginning, where terran was able to cut gases.
This is something that just confuses me, because it seems to me like zerg and protoss simply can't do this sort of aggressive, low-tech style just because bio is so effective in medium numbers. Zerg really wants to overpower, and use all of its units at once. Zerg units are terrible in smallish numbers like that.
So yay, great. Terran can do all this fancy micro and such to be constantly aggressive, maintain map control, and never let the opponent expand. How could zerg and protoss do anything like that? How can zerg and protoss compete with that?
They both win lategame if sufficiently holding off and maintaining a foothold in the match early and midgame. That's the jist of it.
|
What I took out of this daily is that besides the "my unit composition beats your unit compostion" aka "blop" type of games there's this type of play aswell, where a player goes for a more aggresive, tempo based play with only 1 or 2 unit tyoes and exploiting his mobility and larger army size to pick the fights.
To me this feels alot harder to pull off, because you have to feel the flow of the game alot better. As Day9 pointed out, marines truly shine in medium sized groups. Attacking too late or waiting too long isn't nearly as effective. Creating the circumstances where you can get the most out of your marines does seem to me to require some skill.
Keep in mind though, this is just one game and you can't really say about how effective this type of play is in the long run.
As to whether Protoss or Zerg can do this, I dunno. I do feel like Terran is usually the one dictating the flow of the game with all their harassing options and trying to prevent their opponent from freely teching up. This strategy feels to me like to same thing, wearing your opponent down. However, instead of the ninja kungfu style of play, it's actually more brute force. 
|
No daily today? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
