|
On April 15 2011 06:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 05:38 Falling wrote:On April 15 2011 05:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm sorry but you are comparing two completly different match up. PvT problem was against MM timing attack, but protoss never had any problem in late game.
We Zerg have problem with unscouted mid game timign attacks (6 gate, void ray/gateway army push/colossi timing push) and we have a problem end game, being completly dominated by superior army. Not sure why that would make his point irrelevant. Obviously the specifics of what P and Z were struggling with are different. Was anyone arguing differently? Early in SC2, P was having difficulties with unscouted early game timing attacks and dieing before they even got to the end game. But they figured things out and the P struggles subsided. That's the comparison people are making- the figure things out with the tools you have. I'm also cautious on arguments (from Idra) on how races are 'meant' to be played aka Zerg is supposed to be super defensive, reactionary and expands lots. Maybe, but playing how things are 'meant' to be played could be as great a hinderance. If you read early game strategies and descriptions of SC1, Protoss was 'meant' to be really tough, expensive units that don't die. Turns out you churn through your army pretty quick and it's the Terran that has the most cost-effective army. Maybe the race is 'meant' to be played like aggressively like July or some completely different Zerg style. Who knows? It's too early to tell how something is supposed to play. If late game things are even and you get destroyed by early tactics/harass, everything is about how you can taylor a build order/refine it/improve your defence/sim city/manage to find some timing to harass/attack and make your opponent stay in his base. All that of course so that you can go/reach the end game in a good enough shape. Having a late game inferiority is very different.
I can just change your words from tailoring a build that can survive until late game into tailoring a build that delays late game.
If protoss late game ball is stronger isn't the whole thing that you need to keep it from building up quickly? I'm not sure how to do that, but saying it's impossible this early into the game isn't cutting it for me. Not sure if zerg true late game really is that bad, it's just that they need to secure more time to get their late game units out.
|
Should just bring back 1 supply 2 armor roaches and let the protoss keep opening doors for a few years. Surely Tyler wouldn't have an issue with it as, just like now, players didn't have time to come up with new builds to deal with it.
|
Iceland1267 Posts
I and 11k others have been watching idra play for the last hour or so and during time he has been using burrow movement and multi-pronged harass to dismantle a turtling protoss, using nydus to snipe expansions and even using heavy infestor play including a fantastic BM move with neural parasite.
I don't know we'll see this style of play in tournaments from him but at least he is experimenting.
|
Well SoTG is meant to be entertaining and the balance wars are nothing if not entertaining.
|
On April 15 2011 05:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 04:59 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 04:50 AlBundy wrote:On April 15 2011 04:11 Whitewing wrote:
Hey guys: stop complaining about balance, and play the game.
Zerg can win, terran can win, protoss can win, what's the problem? The problem is people don't realize that this is a STRATEGY game. Ever since the dawn of mankind, man have been devising strategies and tactics in order to kill each other. What I mean is that we are not going to figure ZvP out in such a short amount time, especially when the players' skill level is not maximum. Also about ZvP, I'll share my limited knowledge, please take that with a grain of salt. Have you noticed how Protoss players take advantage of the race's benefits, such as warpgate tech, and power units? I believe that Zerg players need to do the same and abuse their strengths. You know, -the ability to perform uncanny tech switches, -the ability to mass an unbelievable amount of units in no time, -the unreal mobility and guerilla warfare tactics And yet you don't understand the game from zerg point of view. Tech switches = don't you understood yet that the problem is that protoss timing attack just negate any tech switches ? Muta are so good to harass, but try to go muta against a good enough toss. Ability to mass an unbelievable amount of units that don't do shit against a ball. Unreal mobility in smaller maps than SC1, with easier wall in, makes counter / zergling run by almost useless. To add to this: Tech switches also result in pitifully upgraded units versus a 3/3 army composition (maybe even 3/3/3, but P don't seem to do that much even lategame). The masses of units can help if you force engagement properly, but often massing units backfires if you max on the wrong units (drones and roaches especially. If anything it's the bigger maps that have been killing Zerg against Protoss. I don't think they realized that the easier it is for them to secure a 3rd, the easier it is for the Protoss too. And that third base is pivotal.
Hey guys as you saw I'm no Z expert. I was just trying to indicate Zerg's strengths, I didn't mean to start a theorycrafting debate.
Although you can't deny that Z is the most effective race when it comes to tech switch.
|
8751 Posts
On April 15 2011 05:21 Gunman_csz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 03:56 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On April 15 2011 02:39 Mailing wrote:On April 15 2011 02:32 s4life wrote:On April 15 2011 01:58 Gunman_csz wrote:On April 15 2011 01:41 zeru wrote:On April 15 2011 01:31 aderum wrote:
I like how everybody just asumes that just b/c idras complaines, that he doesnt try to find new strats.. There was a post from him a while ago saying something like:
"Do you really think that if you job is to play a game, that you dont try to be the best at every aspect of that game? just b/c i complain doesnt mean i dont try to find new strats" No one takes idra serious when he cries about balance, except his idralings. He complained about balance non stop, even in BW about terran, he has cried since the dawn of time and i doubt anyone will ever expect it to stop. Yes but lets take Day9s 40overseers and mass queens / infestors / nydus seriously... or his assertion that infestors are imba in pvz (LOL OMG). I can't wait till he plays the game more competitively and see what he can actually apply in his own gameplay. IdrA might be overly loud about imbalance, but his RTS knowledge far surpasses 99.999percent of all the sc2 programers. And he isn't the only one complaining about balance, the entire pro zerg community is. incontrol and nony kept drawing parallels from broodwar, but the game is so different. Nydus do not work because pylon give u the entire vision of the base, nydus spews units 1 at a time, makes a loud sound, is expensive, and above all dies in 2 seconds when focused fire, at least in broodwar you had darkswarm to protect the nydus. And add to that, shiftque makes the protoss race so easy in terms of mechanics that you don't even need high speed or multitasking any longer. Need a perfect wall on your 3rd base? No problem select one probe from the main base shift-que to the 3rd base, que 3gateways, 2canons, rally the probe back. (u can do all this in a blink of an eye and go back to your army !!!) In broodwar even top pros screwed up with the wall and got punished for it, you had to pay attention and spend hours mastering the skill. Queens, lings, infestor, ultra/broodlord plus 3/3 melee upgrades is viable, but it requires astonishing control and multitasking. Spanishiwa and to a less degree Vibe, play it at a high level with relative success... it plays zerg the way it's supposed to be played, multiple expansions for high gas and low drone count for low mineral. Zerg just needs someone like Jaedong -- and not a B-teamer like Idra -- to start shinning and being entertaining again -- sick tired of watching mass mutas against T and mass roaches against P, that's NOT the way Zerg is supposed to be played -- If spanish and vibe are "playing zerg correctly", why are they not beating top players? spanishiwa's build gets totally DESTROYED by a player like incontrol (who is maybe a top 3 protoss) on his stream with little difficulty. it's a ladder style, something that does not work in the highest level of the game. You presume that no top zerg has ever tried things like this over the last year First, they are beating top players. Second, we don't know anything about their skill level. Maybe if they were playing zerg like everyone else, they'd be nobodies, not even in the top 200. Maybe incontrol beats spanishiwa because..... incontrol is a better player? WTF?!?!?! HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN????? Spanishiwa's general gameplan was better than other zergs' general gameplans but incontrol had better execution? His build order was more refined because he's been doing it for months and spanishiwa improvised? Spanishiwa would have won on other maps and in other positions but not in this instance? This could go on forever. There's way too much other shit going on than "spanishiwa did this sort of thing, inc played standard, spanishiwa failed miserably so i guess that sort of thing sucks" What are you talking about, How and why would you assume that no one knows about their skill level (LOL). There are many replays and vods of both vibe and spansihwa. If you took the time to watch the replays you will know both about their execution as well as game-plan. I can also come up with vague questions: how do you know top zerg haven't tried that and found it doesn't' work. how do you know if spanswha's wins by catching opponents offguard with weird strategies. how do you know if spansiwas build can stand up to most protoss builds? It feels more and more like you are arguing just to argue by raising all these hypothetical questions and vague illustrations. This is what Lalush had to say to spanishwa's build: Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 13:04 LaLuSh wrote:
I thought I was taking my gas late at 25~ish in ZvT (with lots of variations depending on what is scouted).
I can see this working ZvZ vs 14gas 13/14pool, because it's basically how dimaga has been playing for months. But in the other matchups... no... only if you're playing on the US server, where people compete to invent the most stupid strategies.
I don't doubt that it might work perfectly in certain situations. But it won't be stable. Especially vs people feigning pressure and denying information.
Fuck I hope you are hands are just really oily and you accidentally hit all the wrong keys.
Knowing someone's skill level is an epistemological problem. How do we define skill? How do we measure its level? We can't answer those questions. We do know that winning more games indicates higher skill. We do know that there are dozens of factors going into whether or not a player wins a game. So if somehow we knew two players were equally skilled in every possible way, but then we had one of them play spanishiwa's style and the other one play standard zerg style, which one would win more? That is a question that is being debated here. Which style is actually better right now? Someone was fucking up that discussion by implying that if spanishiwa's style was indeed better, then we'd see him beating all the top players all the time.
If IdrA is a much better player than spanishiwa, and they were getting the same win rates, but idra was playing standard style and spanishiwa was playing spanishiwa style, then we'd have a pretty damn good reason to think spanishiwa style is better, even though they win the same amount. If IdrA is way better, and he also wins more, but not much more, then we still might think spanishiwa style is better, since his style is being handicapped by being in the hands of a worse player.
Can you not comprehend why I can't go watch a dozen spanishiwa games and know his skill level? And why I can't take this argument an extra step?
Your vague questions aren't making any point. You read something and didn't comprehend it and assumed there was nothing there to comprehend.
|
On April 15 2011 06:31 syllogism wrote:
Should just bring back 1 supply 2 armor roaches and let the protoss keep opening doors for a few years. Surely Tyler wouldn't have an issue with it as, just like now, players didn't have time to come up with new builds to deal with it.
Yeah like it's anywhere near as imbalanced as that. A race using one single unit isn't really comparable to a 40/60 % winrate skew in favor of protoss for a month. :D
|
On April 15 2011 06:46 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 06:31 syllogism wrote:
Should just bring back 1 supply 2 armor roaches and let the protoss keep opening doors for a few years. Surely Tyler wouldn't have an issue with it as, just like now, players didn't have time to come up with new builds to deal with it. Yeah like it's anywhere near as imbalanced as that. A race using one single unit isn't really comparable to a 40/60 % winrate skew in favor of protoss for a month. :D
Except the point is it wouldn't necessarily be like that now.
No one was using mass sentry vs roaches, there were different maps, builds hadn't been figured out etc.
|
The worst thing in this whole mess of a discussion is that Zerg expect others to suggest new strategies they can explore, and when people go out of their way to actually get involved in such a discussion in a helpful way, the angry mob instantly stomps on it by saying it's crap/inefficient/expensive and goes back to sulking about it. LOUDLY.
Seriously, figure your stuff out on your own. This is getting absurd. -_-
|
Game seems balanced as of now.
Mondragon showed that roaches are better at skirmishing and harassing than in a standing army. Idra proved that Corruptors suck against Stalker-Voidray. We already knew that.
There are other options. The deathball can be beaten using all of Zerg's splash damage arsenal (ultras-blings-fungal).
I've seen a lot of PvTs in tournaments as of late, and it seems to be only a matter of skills.
Marines and Marauders trade with Zealot, Stalkers and Sentries. Support units, economy and upgrades are usually the deciding factor.
|
On April 15 2011 06:24 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 06:11 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 05:38 Falling wrote:On April 15 2011 05:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm sorry but you are comparing two completly different match up. PvT problem was against MM timing attack, but protoss never had any problem in late game.
We Zerg have problem with unscouted mid game timign attacks (6 gate, void ray/gateway army push/colossi timing push) and we have a problem end game, being completly dominated by superior army. Not sure why that would make his point irrelevant. Obviously the specifics of what P and Z were struggling with are different. Was anyone arguing differently? Early in SC2, P was having difficulties with unscouted early game timing attacks and dieing before they even got to the end game. But they figured things out and the P struggles subsided. That's the comparison people are making- the figure things out with the tools you have. I'm also cautious on arguments (from Idra) on how races are 'meant' to be played aka Zerg is supposed to be super defensive, reactionary and expands lots. Maybe, but playing how things are 'meant' to be played could be as great a hinderance. If you read early game strategies and descriptions of SC1, Protoss was 'meant' to be really tough, expensive units that don't die. Turns out you churn through your army pretty quick and it's the Terran that has the most cost-effective army. Maybe the race is 'meant' to be played like aggressively like July or some completely different Zerg style. Who knows? It's too early to tell how something is supposed to play. If late game things are even and you get destroyed by early tactics/harass, everything is about how you can taylor a build order/refine it/improve your defence/sim city/manage to find some timing to harass/attack and make your opponent stay in his base. All that of course so that you can go/reach the end game in a good enough shape. Having a late game inferiority is very different. I can just change your words from tailoring a build that can survive until late game into tailoring a build that delays late game.
If protoss late game ball is stronger isn't the whole thing that you need to keep it from building up quickly? I'm not sure how to do that, but saying it's impossible this early into the game isn't cutting it for me. Not sure if zerg true late game really is that bad, it's just that they need to secure more time to get their late game units out.
Nooooooooooo....... just play zerg damn it, it's not about build order / timing and such, it's about army composition. Every good enough zerg basically knows how to counter every timings (a 4 gate or a 6 gate, or whatever) the problem is to scout it to react. And then, the problem in end game is that your army composition have to be like perfect, you need the exact number of broodlord, you need to stop roach at the good time, you need to scout the opponent army composition almost like every second.
The build order is not exactly the problem, the problem is your army composition.
I've never said it's impossible, I'm not even sure protoss is strictly overpowered, but zerg is like on a freeking line, always risking to fall because you just made 10 roach while you should have stop. It's pretty fun for protoss to say: just sack 30 roach then build 10 corruptors... Don't you understand the cost of that ?
On April 15 2011 06:50 Talin wrote:
The worst thing in this whole mess of a discussion is that Zerg expect others to suggest new strategies they can explore, and when people go out of their way to actually get involved in such a discussion in a helpful way, the angry mob instantly stomps on it by saying it's crap/inefficient/expensive and goes back to sulking about it. LOUDLY.
Seriously, figure your stuff out on your own. This is getting absurd. -_-
No, that's protoss who all feel like they should give tips to zerg so that they win, just to make sure they are not OP.
|
On April 15 2011 06:52 Psychlone wrote:
Game seems balanced as of now.
Mondragon showed that roaches are better at skirmishing and harassing than in a standing army. Idra proved that Corruptors suck against Stalker-Voidray. We already knew that.
There are other options. The deathball can be beaten using all of Zerg's splash damage arsenal (ultras-blings-fungal).
I've seen a lot of PvTs in tournaments as of late, and it seems to be only a matter of skills.
Marines and Marauders trade with Zealot, Stalkers and Sentries. Support units, economy and upgrades are usually the deciding factor.
Can we really stop using Mondragon as an example? We saw two ZvP's from him, against a guy that didn't even build units for like half the game. I think we were already aware if you don't build units then roaches are pretty good
|
Everyone seems to be talking about the lategame of ZvP but we should also talk about the earlygame tbh, specifically how easy it is for zerg to fall behind or outright die due to a lack of information. Like IdrA's quoted as saying, no amount of creativity is going to get an overlord past a marine (or stalker, or sentry) nor a zergling through a wall. And while it's not necessarily an imbalance, it puts the earlygame in a shitty, russian roulette-esque state for Z, or just puts them behind economically because they have to prepare for everything. I feel like an improvement to zerg scouting (overlords, most likely) or static defenses would have very little chance of breaking the matchup (for example, if slowverlords get a little faster, there's no way in hell that'll make ZvP Z favoured).
Having a race play reactively is just better for the game than having to pull mystical predictions out of your ass based on things which don't necessarily imply anything at all. It's less of a problem in ZvT because we have a unit that, when reached, provides extreme safety from early pressure up to a certain point (banelings because they're so damn cost efficient against sober marines when on creep and speedlings beat marauders and reapers pretty handily), but that unit (or combo, upgrade, structure, etc) just simply doesn't exist in ZvP.
|
On April 15 2011 06:50 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 06:46 karpo wrote:On April 15 2011 06:31 syllogism wrote:
Should just bring back 1 supply 2 armor roaches and let the protoss keep opening doors for a few years. Surely Tyler wouldn't have an issue with it as, just like now, players didn't have time to come up with new builds to deal with it. Yeah like it's anywhere near as imbalanced as that. A race using one single unit isn't really comparable to a 40/60 % winrate skew in favor of protoss for a month. :D Except the point is it wouldn't necessarily be like that now. No one was using mass sentry vs roaches, there were different maps, builds hadn't been figured out etc.
If you can't see the huge flaw in basic game design with 1 supply roach i guess it's no use even trying. What i'm saying is that there's a difference between a slightly skewed win/loss ratio between races and one race massing a single unit cause it's just that much better than everything else. It's a question about high end PvZ balance versus a mistake in the basic game design. As a protoss player i would say the same thing if stalkers were broken in the beta in the same way as roaches, a race massing one unit is detrimental to the game both for players and as a esport.
|
On April 15 2011 06:56 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 06:24 karpo wrote:On April 15 2011 06:11 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 05:38 Falling wrote:On April 15 2011 05:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm sorry but you are comparing two completly different match up. PvT problem was against MM timing attack, but protoss never had any problem in late game.
We Zerg have problem with unscouted mid game timign attacks (6 gate, void ray/gateway army push/colossi timing push) and we have a problem end game, being completly dominated by superior army. Not sure why that would make his point irrelevant. Obviously the specifics of what P and Z were struggling with are different. Was anyone arguing differently? Early in SC2, P was having difficulties with unscouted early game timing attacks and dieing before they even got to the end game. But they figured things out and the P struggles subsided. That's the comparison people are making- the figure things out with the tools you have. I'm also cautious on arguments (from Idra) on how races are 'meant' to be played aka Zerg is supposed to be super defensive, reactionary and expands lots. Maybe, but playing how things are 'meant' to be played could be as great a hinderance. If you read early game strategies and descriptions of SC1, Protoss was 'meant' to be really tough, expensive units that don't die. Turns out you churn through your army pretty quick and it's the Terran that has the most cost-effective army. Maybe the race is 'meant' to be played like aggressively like July or some completely different Zerg style. Who knows? It's too early to tell how something is supposed to play. If late game things are even and you get destroyed by early tactics/harass, everything is about how you can taylor a build order/refine it/improve your defence/sim city/manage to find some timing to harass/attack and make your opponent stay in his base. All that of course so that you can go/reach the end game in a good enough shape. Having a late game inferiority is very different. I can just change your words from tailoring a build that can survive until late game into tailoring a build that delays late game.
If protoss late game ball is stronger isn't the whole thing that you need to keep it from building up quickly? I'm not sure how to do that, but saying it's impossible this early into the game isn't cutting it for me. Not sure if zerg true late game really is that bad, it's just that they need to secure more time to get their late game units out. Nooooooooooo....... just play zerg damn it, it's not about build order / timing and such, it's about army composition. Every good enough zerg basically knows how to counter every timings (a 4 gate or a 6 gate, or whatever) the problem is to scout it to react. And then, the problem in end game is that your army composition have to be like perfect, you need the exact number of broodlord, you need to stop roach at the good time, you need to scout the opponent army composition almost like every second. The build order is not exactly the problem, the problem is your army composition.
Yeah, but I think he might be referring to the build in a more general sense such as what zergs do now (for the most part):
lair->burrow and some roaches-> third base
so, for example, you could also do something like
ventral sacs -> double expand for gas -> infestation pit -> transition into high gas play and hive
(not saying it's a good "build", just using it as an example)
If not, he's wrong ^^
On April 15 2011 07:11 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 06:50 1Eris1 wrote:On April 15 2011 06:46 karpo wrote:On April 15 2011 06:31 syllogism wrote:
Should just bring back 1 supply 2 armor roaches and let the protoss keep opening doors for a few years. Surely Tyler wouldn't have an issue with it as, just like now, players didn't have time to come up with new builds to deal with it. Yeah like it's anywhere near as imbalanced as that. A race using one single unit isn't really comparable to a 40/60 % winrate skew in favor of protoss for a month. :D Except the point is it wouldn't necessarily be like that now. No one was using mass sentry vs roaches, there were different maps, builds hadn't been figured out etc. If you can't see the huge flaw in basic game design with 1 supply roach i guess it's no use even trying. What i'm saying is that there's a difference between a slightly skewed win/loss ratio between races and one race massing a single unit cause it's just that much better than everything else. It's a question about high end PvZ balance versus a mistake in the basic game design. As a protoss player i would say the same thing if stalkers were broken in the beta in the same way as roaches, a race massing one unit is detrimental to the game both for players and as a esport.
late game blink stalkers... ? We see plenty of games where protoss decides "fuck it, I'm just making stalkers" when they're in the double digits with gateways.
|
Can we really stop using Mondragon as an example? We saw two ZvP's from him, against a guy that didn't even build units for like half the game. I think we were already aware if you don't build units then roaches are pretty good
I just think roaches suck vs P in general except in very niche roles (drop or early push to kill sentries). I am appalled that Zerg's keep massing them and still expect to win with hydra-roach corruptor when it is so cost-ineffective. I think the poor performance of Zerg players recently is mostly attributed to using them too much.
However, they are good against templar tech. There needs to be a shift in the metagame promoting Templar tech in PvZ, so right now Zergs have to learn how to beat Colossus play.
|
On April 15 2011 06:56 WhiteDog wrote:
No, that's protoss who all feel like they should give tips to zerg so that they win, just to make sure they are not OP.
Yeah, and just to make sure, there's actually a global Protoss conspiracy to start throwing away every second PvZ on ladder to make you feel better and because we're all so scared of the Blizzard nerfhammer. ^_^
This isn't about "Zerg" and "Protoss" - it's about players who have the gamer mentality, and players who have the whiny defeatist mentality. Ultimately there are both types of players in any race, they just come out under specific circumstances and if they have the right encouragement.
|
On April 15 2011 07:14 Psychlone wrote:Show nested quote +
Can we really stop using Mondragon as an example? We saw two ZvP's from him, against a guy that didn't even build units for like half the game. I think we were already aware if you don't build units then roaches are pretty good
I just think roaches suck vs P in general except in very niche roles (drop or early push to kill sentries). I am appalled that Zerg's keep massing them and still expect to win with hydra-roach corruptor when it is so cost-ineffective. I think the poor performance of Zerg players recently is mostly attributed to using them too much.
What would you suggest as an alternative? No other zerg ground unit can weather the fiery pew pew lasers of the colossus...
|
On April 15 2011 07:13 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 06:56 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 06:24 karpo wrote:On April 15 2011 06:11 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 05:38 Falling wrote:On April 15 2011 05:04 WhiteDog wrote:
I'm sorry but you are comparing two completly different match up. PvT problem was against MM timing attack, but protoss never had any problem in late game.
We Zerg have problem with unscouted mid game timign attacks (6 gate, void ray/gateway army push/colossi timing push) and we have a problem end game, being completly dominated by superior army. Not sure why that would make his point irrelevant. Obviously the specifics of what P and Z were struggling with are different. Was anyone arguing differently? Early in SC2, P was having difficulties with unscouted early game timing attacks and dieing before they even got to the end game. But they figured things out and the P struggles subsided. That's the comparison people are making- the figure things out with the tools you have. I'm also cautious on arguments (from Idra) on how races are 'meant' to be played aka Zerg is supposed to be super defensive, reactionary and expands lots. Maybe, but playing how things are 'meant' to be played could be as great a hinderance. If you read early game strategies and descriptions of SC1, Protoss was 'meant' to be really tough, expensive units that don't die. Turns out you churn through your army pretty quick and it's the Terran that has the most cost-effective army. Maybe the race is 'meant' to be played like aggressively like July or some completely different Zerg style. Who knows? It's too early to tell how something is supposed to play. If late game things are even and you get destroyed by early tactics/harass, everything is about how you can taylor a build order/refine it/improve your defence/sim city/manage to find some timing to harass/attack and make your opponent stay in his base. All that of course so that you can go/reach the end game in a good enough shape. Having a late game inferiority is very different. I can just change your words from tailoring a build that can survive until late game into tailoring a build that delays late game.
If protoss late game ball is stronger isn't the whole thing that you need to keep it from building up quickly? I'm not sure how to do that, but saying it's impossible this early into the game isn't cutting it for me. Not sure if zerg true late game really is that bad, it's just that they need to secure more time to get their late game units out. Nooooooooooo....... just play zerg damn it, it's not about build order / timing and such, it's about army composition. Every good enough zerg basically knows how to counter every timings (a 4 gate or a 6 gate, or whatever) the problem is to scout it to react. And then, the problem in end game is that your army composition have to be like perfect, you need the exact number of broodlord, you need to stop roach at the good time, you need to scout the opponent army composition almost like every second. The build order is not exactly the problem, the problem is your army composition. Yeah, but I think he might be referring to the build in a more general sense such as what zergs do now (for the most part): lair->burrow and some roaches-> third base so, for example, you could also do something like ventral sacs -> double expand for gas -> infestation pit -> transition into high gas play and hive (not saying it's a good "build", just using it as an example) If not, he's wrong ^^ Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 07:11 karpo wrote:On April 15 2011 06:50 1Eris1 wrote:On April 15 2011 06:46 karpo wrote:On April 15 2011 06:31 syllogism wrote:
Should just bring back 1 supply 2 armor roaches and let the protoss keep opening doors for a few years. Surely Tyler wouldn't have an issue with it as, just like now, players didn't have time to come up with new builds to deal with it. Yeah like it's anywhere near as imbalanced as that. A race using one single unit isn't really comparable to a 40/60 % winrate skew in favor of protoss for a month. :D Except the point is it wouldn't necessarily be like that now. No one was using mass sentry vs roaches, there were different maps, builds hadn't been figured out etc. If you can't see the huge flaw in basic game design with 1 supply roach i guess it's no use even trying. What i'm saying is that there's a difference between a slightly skewed win/loss ratio between races and one race massing a single unit cause it's just that much better than everything else. It's a question about high end PvZ balance versus a mistake in the basic game design. As a protoss player i would say the same thing if stalkers were broken in the beta in the same way as roaches, a race massing one unit is detrimental to the game both for players and as a esport. late game blink stalkers... ? We see plenty of games where protoss decides "fuck it, I'm just making stalkers" when they're in the double digits with gateways.
Sigh. At least from what i saw in the beta 1 supply roach just meant that nothing else was really viable due to their strength/massability. There's a huge difference between reinforcing with blink stalkers late game and one unit overshadowing everything else totally. Blink stalkers is the only really good unit that can you can quickly mass up after a big engagement. If you lose most of a P army you won't magically get 5-10 immortals/colossus after 40 seconds, you rely more or less totally on gateways.
|
On April 15 2011 07:17 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 07:14 Psychlone wrote:
Can we really stop using Mondragon as an example? We saw two ZvP's from him, against a guy that didn't even build units for like half the game. I think we were already aware if you don't build units then roaches are pretty good
I just think roaches suck vs P in general except in very niche roles (drop or early push to kill sentries). I am appalled that Zerg's keep massing them and still expect to win with hydra-roach corruptor when it is so cost-ineffective. I think the poor performance of Zerg players recently is mostly attributed to using them too much. What would you suggest as an alternative? No other zerg ground unit can weather the fiery pew pew lasers of the colossus...
I usually beat Colossus based Protoss when I don't play terrible using Muck's build.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
