EPTOfficial State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 785
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Stiver
Canada285 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote: "Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. " 1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech. But 6 gate does NOT come before Burrow tech. And 6 gate does not have detection. If they try to FF-kill your units, you can burrow them. | ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
Edit: http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/5022059/ freakin sweet. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On April 16 2011 04:01 Severedevil wrote: But 6 gate does NOT come before Burrow tech. And 6 gate does not have detection. If they try to FF-kill your units, you can burrow them. Generally the timing of burrow and 6 gate are super close together. Sometimes even some stalling needs to take place by the zerg. I know Idra was able to get burrow move done before some 6gates but I haven't seen many people as slick as him. It also depends on what happens prior. So I don't think you can explicit-ally state that it hits before and without detection. MC demonstrated a super fast obs + 6gate to defeat Dimaga. To my knowledge, ling/bling does deal with 4gate. I could be wrong though. I haven't really watched enough of it and really only basing this off my own experiences. On April 16 2011 04:08 Wrongspeedy wrote: With spanishiwas's no gas builds he actually says that Ling/Bane with drops is how he counters 6 gate builds with lots of sentries. For anybody who doesn't think thats a legit strat O.o. Then he gets infestors and ultralisks. Edit: http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/5022059/ freakin sweet. That is quite interesting. I would never have imagined drop + speed + banelings would come before 6gate when getting such a late gas. Must take a look into that. | ||
|
LoliKuma
United States237 Posts
PLLLEEEEAAAASEEE GET IDRA ON FOR NEXT SOTG! http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=212994 | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 16 2011 04:09 Numy wrote: Generally the timing of burrow and 6 gate are super close together. Sometimes even some stalling needs to take place by the zerg. I know Idra was able to get burrow move done before some 6gates but I haven't seen many people as slick as him. It also depends on what happens prior. So I don't think you can explicit-ally state that it hits before and without detection. MC demonstrated a super fast obs + 6gate to defeat Dimaga. To my knowledge, ling/bling does deal with 4gate. I could be wrong though. I haven't really watched enough of it and really only basing this off my own experiences. That is quite interesting. I would never have imagined drop + speed + banelings would come before 6gate when getting such a late gas. Must take a look into that. No, it's pretty easy to get tunneling claw and burrow before six gate, the main problem is to actually scout the six gate and react to it on time. Even pure ling can counter 4 gate but it's way easier with a bunch of roach in assist. | ||
|
flodeskum
Iceland1267 Posts
On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote: There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss. o/ As it happens I'm a masters protoss who plays zerg in about a third of my 1v1's and I do very well at zvp. I won't deny that it can be a frustrating matchup and currently it is probably the easiest matchup to lose against a weaker player. But it is no worse than PvT was a few months ago and it certainly isn't broken. Dude I just said Zergs do try a bunch of different things contrary to what the SOTG people think. I think people are trolling me becasue responses have gotten fairly silly and aparently I'm talking about balance now which is weird. Erm... Because back when Protoss were still playing badly, and Zergs were palying well we could beat the Protoss because Zerg players are better than Protoss players. Now protoss realizes you don't really have to ever attack and get 200 and you win the game no matter what. Which is not a result of us not trying new thigns, it is a result of us trying everythign we could, and it all failing so we default to the only thing that has had any real success, despite how badly it actually does. And you think people are trolling you? | ||
|
Mailing
United States3087 Posts
On April 16 2011 06:57 flodeskum wrote: o/ As it happens I'm a masters protoss who plays zerg in about a third of my 1v1's and I do very well at zvp. I won't deny that it can be a frustrating matchup and currently it is probably the easiest matchup to lose against a weaker player. But it is no worse than PvT was a few months ago and it certainly isn't broken. Erm... And you think people are trolling you? While what he posted is an opinion, back during the time between GSL1-2, people posted here on TL that on average, the top zergs, especially korean zergs, had around 2-3x the average number of ladder games played. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
There are equally trollish posts (albeit better disguised and veiled) from both sides. For example: On April 15 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Yeah honestly the more poignant lesson from the history imbs is providing there is that we're fine with PvT now and there weren't any significant patch changes (in fact KHAYDARIN AMULET GUYS WHAT ARE WE GONNA DOOOOOOOO?!? happened). It took a long time to come out of it though... and when we first started winning more, it was because of threatening all-in kind of plays protoss could do, that made terran play safer. Then we found a way to beat one dimensional terran play, that made terran have to play in other ways. By the time terran got really robust again in tvp, we also had robust pvt builds developed (upgrades!). And just like the 5hatch hydra --> muta build that saved ZvP in SC1, we had very early examples of the modern way to play PvT, but they just didnt catch on immediately. We saw double forge on metal like in season 3 of GSL? This debate is going nowhere, and either side doesn't want to give up an inch. At least for the pros on this site. And from what I can see, they are not lying. They genuinely believe they are having more/less success because they somehow are playing/understanding the game better, without any interference of external factors. And the other side we have the exact opposite force that probably believe they are being disadvantaged unfairly. As for the lack of attempts of opening doors by pro Zergs, I'll let this short video clip (which was officially blessed by Blizzard) do the talking. Keep in mind that this was half an year ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrfzEO2yTe0 On April 16 2011 04:25 LoliKuma wrote: Please JP PLLLEEEEAAAASEEE GET IDRA ON FOR NEXT SOTG! I don't think it's a good idea for them to bring any Z to their show, forget Idra. (and I think they agree) In all seriousness, it'll probably be much more productive to discuss the 1048th variation of 4-gate - At least people will learn something. I'm sure people will some day look back on this thread and some posts. (probably not me, tnough) | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
| ||
|
dtz
5834 Posts
| ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On April 16 2011 06:01 WhiteDog wrote: No, it's pretty easy to get tunneling claw and burrow before six gate, the main problem is to actually scout the six gate and react to it on time. Sure, if you get Tunneling Claws and mass Roach that's a decent investment, and doesn't fit into ling/baneling/infestor... if you guessed the Protoss's plan wrong, it's a little awkward. (Although two base Tunneling Roach --> three base & drop Protoss if you don't get rushed sounds perfectly viable. I'm curious why you feel the opening is in a hole if Protoss doesn't 6 gate.) So why not just get burrow? Not only do you get baneling/zergling traps, you also get to hide any units that get caught out or FF'd into a corner. And if Protoss ponies up for obs, his push will be weaker... I'd also suggest delaying Baneling Speed because it's expensive as hell for a very small bonus. | ||
|
templar rage
United States2509 Posts
| ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
I think its very good and raises some interesting questions. Have the SotG guys ever addressed whether they think SC2 is as fundamentally well designed as SC1? Or even if they see it having the potential and a high enough skill cap to develop the level of quality SC1 had in top level games? Might be an interesting topic if not, I noticed how much they love talking about BW last week  | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
In a nutshell, you don't need a game to be perfectly balanced (with an RTS that could easily be impossible) - you just need to make sure that the better player has better odds of winning. One way to do that is just to make the game very challenging mechanically. When the execution of even the most basic things is really hard, most good strategies will be dependent on the player's ability to execute them correctly. On the other hand, when execution is (pretty much) a non-issue, it's the strategy itself that wins or loses, and all that the player needs to do is make the right decisions. Having a system of units that hard counter each other only emphasizes that issue. This also makes it all the more easier for existing flaws in the system to become actual imbalances that cannot be easily overcome with skill. What Starcraft 2 did is equivalent to having an aimbot built-in in a competitive FPS game - you would still need to be smart about your movement and weapon choice, but if you get that right you're going to get a headshot on the other guy for sure. While being smart should certainly be a good talent toi have in competitive games, it shouldn't be the ONLY one. Mechanical skills and multitasking are what makes the game fun not only to watch, but also to play, and games MUST give enough space for those skills to be used. Then again, a lot of people and threads were calling for Starcraft 2 to be "more of a strategy game and less of an APM game" a few years ago (lol). So now we pretty much have a glorified Brood War Simulator instead of a proper sequel. =/ | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
On April 16 2011 12:40 Talin wrote: What Starcraft 2 did is equivalent to having an aimbot built-in in a competitive FPS game - you would still need to be smart about your movement and weapon choice, but if you get that right you're going to get a headshot on the other guy for sure. While being smart should certainly be a good talent toi have in competitive games, it shouldn't be the ONLY one. Mechanical skills and multitasking are what makes the game fun not only to watch, but also to play, and games MUST give enough space for those skills to be used. Then again, a lot of people and threads were calling for Starcraft 2 to be "more of a strategy game and less of an APM game" a few years ago (lol). So now we pretty much have a glorified Brood War Simulator instead of a proper sequel. =/ Thats the kind of thing I would love to hear them discuss, along with all the other interesting points being brought up in that thread. Make it happen JP! :O | ||
|
pieman819
Australia457 Posts
I can't see how you would say the better players aren't consistantly winning in SC2 though, MC, MVP (he had a slump for a couple of weeks) and MKP (five? finals appearances now), other top guys generally fitting into the same higher spots in code S. Even for NA scene guys like Kiwikaki and SeleCT seem to always be right up there in top 3. I don't follow the EU as closely but I wouldn't doubt if there were 3 or 4 guys that consistantly get to the finals there either. I wouldn't go as far to say SC2 is the aimbot version of RTS though, maybe more like the aim assist from console FPS's | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
| ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On April 16 2011 12:40 Talin wrote: In a nutshell, you don't need a game to be perfectly balanced (with an RTS that could easily be impossible) - you just need to make sure that the better player has better odds of winning. One way to do that is just to make the game very challenging mechanically. When the execution of even the most basic things is really hard, most good strategies will be dependent on the player's ability to execute them correctly. No, making a game mechanically demanding means that mechanically adept players will thrive. Skill may be almost indistinguishable from mechanical ability in BW, but it is not so by definition. On the other hand, when execution is (pretty much) a non-issue, it's the strategy itself that wins or loses, and all that the player needs to do is make the right decisions. Having a system of units that hard counter each other only emphasizes that issue. This also makes it all the more easier for existing flaws in the system to become actual imbalances that cannot be easily overcome with skill. SC2 doesn't have hard counters, or rather no more so than BW. Obviously both games have them to a degree, eg zealots hard countered by flying stuff.. What Starcraft 2 did is equivalent to having an aimbot built-in in a competitive FPS game - you would still need to be smart about your movement and weapon choice, but if you get that right you're going to get a headshot on the other guy for sure. While being smart should certainly be a good talent toi have in competitive games, it shouldn't be the ONLY one. Mechanical skills and multitasking are what makes the game fun not only to watch, but also to play, and games MUST give enough space for those skills to be used. Funny then how mechanically strong players do just fine. IdrA for example frankly doesn't have much going for him other than mechanics. It is clearly still a huge, huge part of the game. Just a little less so than in BW. I find that a very good thing, both as a player and spectator. Then again, a lot of people and threads were calling for Starcraft 2 to be "more of a strategy game and less of an APM game" a few years ago (lol). So now we pretty much have a glorified Brood War Simulator instead of a proper sequel. =/ All this discussion is moot anyway. SC2 is as mechanically demanding a game as a mainstream company can get away with making. Even more so really, but it has the names Starcraft and Blizzard backing it. Most of the changes they made were simply bringing SC in line with other modern games anyway, and there would be howls of derision if they tried garbage like single building selection. It's archaic, and good riddance. Fighting a piss poor interface like BWs is not fun. | ||
|
Cranberries
Wales567 Posts
Infestor > Neural Parasite Protoss Probe > Create Nexus > Create Protoss army ... The horror! | ||
| ||
