EPTNow that Burrow costs 100/100, extra time, and is Lair, Roach busts are -not- the problem. Banelings do benefit from Burrow, but that usually happens in the midgame when there's little difference between 100/100 and 50/50. It does not come into play early enough for it to be any sort of OP rush tactic. As stands, no one really gets Burrow, even though its a nice feature. If it were lowered to 50/50 but keeps the time and Lair tech requirements, I see nothing wrong with that, and I doubt it would impact anything other than encourage people to Burrow more, which is a nice thing imo.
[D] The cost of Burrow - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21244 Posts
Now that Burrow costs 100/100, extra time, and is Lair, Roach busts are -not- the problem. Banelings do benefit from Burrow, but that usually happens in the midgame when there's little difference between 100/100 and 50/50. It does not come into play early enough for it to be any sort of OP rush tactic. As stands, no one really gets Burrow, even though its a nice feature. If it were lowered to 50/50 but keeps the time and Lair tech requirements, I see nothing wrong with that, and I doubt it would impact anything other than encourage people to Burrow more, which is a nice thing imo. | ||
|
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
1) burrow out side of enemies natural, and wait for them to move out vs you, unburrow and punish for leaving base 2) Burrow lings in front of natural, have burrowed roaches move into enemies main. Unburrow roaches in mineral patch. When enemy sends army to go save main, run speed lings into my opponents natural 3) burrow lings just out side my choke, wait for opponent to attack my natural, send army minus lings vs their army, unburrow lings and hit from behind as well 4) burrow infestor in defensive positions, or set up ambush. Get in battle, unburrow infestor and take control of the big things from behind their army. There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win. | ||
|
MoNoNauT
United States74 Posts
On April 25 2010 15:59 Insanious wrote: There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win. I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow. | ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
On April 25 2010 15:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I do agree with this OP. As I see it: Now that Burrow costs 100/100, extra time, and is Lair, Roach busts are -not- the problem. Banelings do benefit from Burrow, but that usually happens in the midgame when there's little difference between 100/100 and 50/50. It does not come into play early enough for it to be any sort of OP rush tactic. As stands, no one really gets Burrow, even though its a nice feature. If it were lowered to 50/50 but keeps the time and Lair tech requirements, I see nothing wrong with that, and I doubt it would impact anything other than encourage people to Burrow more, which is a nice thing imo. I agree with this and the OP Yea 100/100 is fine if it wasn't lair tech like in BW, but having to tech up to lair 150/100 and then burrow 100/100 and the time for lair and burrow upgrade to finish? If keep the tech and time the same burrow should just be left at 50/50. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 25 2010 16:16 MoNoNauT wrote: I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow. 100/100 is not "very costly". It's quite standard and there are only a few abilities that cost less to research. Nobody has taken away your burrow. You still have it. You just have to pay a very reasonable amount to research it. I don't see the problem. Considering the massive utility (Every single ground unit is affected!) the ability provides and how it awards creative play, 100/100 is more than fair. On April 25 2010 16:25 Rucky wrote: I agree with this and the OP Yea 100/100 is fine if it wasn't lair tech like in BW, but having to tech up to lair 150/100 and then burrow 100/100 and the time for lair and burrow upgrade to finish? Because you weren't going to go Lair anyway? Come on. Why don't you add in the cost of the hatchery before you morph it to lair? Or the spawning pool you need to get to the lair? Or the cost of the drones it's going to take to to harvest the resources that you're going to spend on burrow? Get a grip. | ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
| ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
| ||
|
MoNoNauT
United States74 Posts
On April 25 2010 17:39 ComradeDover wrote: 100/100 is not "very costly". It's quite standard and there are only a few abilities that cost less to research. Nobody has taken away your burrow. You still have it. You just have to pay a very reasonable amount to research it. I don't see the problem. Considering the massive utility (Every single ground unit is affected!) the ability provides and how it awards creative play, 100/100 is more than fair. I appreciate your view, and I considered it myself for a long time, but I'm just suggesting that for something so important to the viability of the entire race (like the ultra-cheap warp gate tech), it should be a bit more accessible. I'm really glad that all of the other zerg that have responded so far have so accurately reflected my own experiences that have led to this belief... I just never get it anymore because of the high cost. It may seem insignificant on paper, but in practice it's very difficult to get any earlier than 12-15 minutes into the game, especially against an agressive opponent. | ||
|
Roniii
United States289 Posts
| ||
|
Thamoo
Canada234 Posts
On April 25 2010 17:44 ComradeDover wrote: Maybe it's because I tend to play Terran with a smattering of Protoss on the side, but I just don't get it. What are Zerg players using these extra 50 minerals and gas for that's so important and so irreplaceable that they're passing up an ability they clearly care about, or they wouldn't be making complain threads about? Way to miss the point completly there : Burrow is pretty bad as an ability. 100/100 is too much for it (hence why nobody ever gets it in platinum++). 50/50 is passable for it. If you reduce the cost to 50/50, you don't make zerg much stronger at all (because burrow simply isn't that good, and the 50/50 cost barely justifies it), but you do add an element of customisation/strategy/flavor by having zergs actually teching it, instead of ignoring it 100% of the time. | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 25 2010 17:55 Thamoo wrote: Burrow is pretty bad as an ability. 100/100 is too much for it Hmm... On April 25 2010 17:55 Roniii wrote: burrow is extremely strong so i understand the cost. but i rarely see it used to its full potential On April 25 2010 16:16 MoNoNauT wrote: I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow. On April 25 2010 15:59 Insanious wrote: There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win. On April 25 2010 14:28 newbcake wrote: I disagree, burrow is already very strong. Aside from the obvious strengths of burrowed roaches, burrowed zerglings can deny expansions and give scouting info without your opponent knowing. Burrowed hydras can kill harassing air units or set up air units. Burrowed banelings are just wrong. I think 100/100 is a fair price for a very very powerful ability. Don't forget how much mileage zerglings and banelings also got out of fast burrow research. On April 25 2010 15:26 AeroGear wrote: In my opinion the strongest use to burrow is for flanking/surround/ambushes, not the regen mechanic. 1 concave is good, but 2 is significantly better not to mention it denies retreat! Ever so sneaky zergs, I really dread meeting them in ladder should they use borrow to its full extent! (Not that they are easy to deal with in any way otherwise) Either force your opponment to have observers/overseers at multiple locations, or force terran to be ever more defensive/wait for raven(s), or scan his warpath instead of using mules. It seems these people would disagree with you, Thamoo. | ||
|
7
Canada1218 Posts
| ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 25 2010 18:03 7 wrote: Burrow isn't the first thing i jump to upgrade w/ my gas though....so yeah I think working out the strategy for when the upgrade timing should be, is important Just because it isn't the first thing you jump to upgrade doesn't mean there's a problem, though... | ||
|
roemy
Germany432 Posts
i mean... it didn't change anything about the marauder situation either... maybe for 10-20 players at the very top *shrug* but i would support any reduction to zealot charge | ||
|
Thamoo
Canada234 Posts
On April 25 2010 18:00 ComradeDover wrote: Hmm... It seems these people would disagree with you, Thamoo. So its 5 persons against pretty much every top-level players in the world (unless I'm mistaken, but in the hundreds (I wish I were exagerating) of replays I watched I only saw burrow used once and it was for a banneling trap against terran, which did work alright but its still much better to get the banneling speed upgrade instead). | ||
|
HUGGY
Iceland42 Posts
| ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21244 Posts
| ||
|
MoNoNauT
United States74 Posts
| ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 25 2010 18:23 Thamoo wrote: So its 5 persons against pretty much every top-level players in the world (unless I'm mistaken, but in the hundreds (I wish I were exagerating) of replays I watched I only saw burrow used once and it was for a banneling trap against terran, which did work alright but its still much better to get the banneling speed upgrade instead). But of course you're right. I'm sure every person who supports keeping it the way it is knows about this thread and has posted in it, so it's fair to assume that the number of players who support the status quo is exactly five. It's also very true that if something isn't seen in the first few months in beta, it is completely unviable and will never be used in high level play ever. Just look at Broodwar, or example. What was I thinking? -.-" | ||
|
Thamoo
Canada234 Posts
On April 25 2010 18:29 ComradeDover wrote: But of course you're right. I'm sure every person who supports keeping it the way it is knows about this thread and has posted in it, so it's fair to assume that the number of players who support the status quo are exactly five. I was merely pointing out that anecdotal data such as 5 random persons dosn't constitute a good basis to draw conclusions from. Trying to debate if its good or not is pointless compared to the high level data we already have. On April 25 2010 18:29 ComradeDover wrote: It's also very true that if something isn't seen in the first few months in beta, it is completely unviable and will never be used in high level play ever. Just look at Broodwar, or example. What was I thinking? -.-" By reducing the cost we encourage people to try it. In return we have the data to ether nerf it back to 100/100 if we do find a way to abuse it (which is good, because now people will have learnt to use burrow correctly, justifying the cost) or to keep it at 50/50 and add more flavor/depth to the game. Win/Win scenario with no drawback whatsoever! Please remimber that as far as overall balance is concerned its really not that big of a deal, its still only a 50/50 ressources differance if you do choose to get it. The whole point is to get the mechanic working for flavor/gameplay issues. | ||
| ||
