|
On September 21 2010 00:11 alexpnd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 00:07 in7e.sCream wrote:
^ another terran claiming that all is fine. why not? As someone stated before, with the choice of chrono boosting probes protoss leads in worker count (permanently) where as mules are a temporary mechanic.
The Protoss will only lead in worker count until saturation. It's not permanent. Stop saying that -- it only makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about.
However, with MULEs, Terran can:
1. Keep up with the economy of a Protoss chronoboosting probes anyway. This nullifies (or at least dampens) the "permanent" advantage you claimed above with which you attempt to imply balance.
2. Once both T and P are at saturation, MULEs will increase Terran's mineral income beyond Protoss.
If #1 is a wash and #2 gives T the advantage, the net advantage is to T. If there's a net advantage, it's not balanced. Note that I'm not saying the matchup isn't balanced -- that's strawmanning what I'm saying. I'm saying that the macro mechanic for Protoss is not as robust as Terran's in terms of economy. It's straight up better.
Furthermore, depending on the situation and timing (early game, fending off a MM push, etc.), the Protoss may not always have the energy to spend on chrono'ing probes, so I find the argument that Terrans need energy for scanning too as a balancing argument to be null.
|
On September 21 2010 00:23 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 23:37 theSAiNT wrote:On September 20 2010 23:31 Unentschieden wrote:On September 20 2010 22:19 theSAiNT wrote:
Economically, the T is pretty even across both these scenarios. Yet it feels like the P should really be ahead from investing a lot into a storm drop. Unfortunately, because he reveals his tech by doing so, he allows the T to drop mules instead of save for scan and in reality doesn't actually hurt the T much.
You are trying to cherrypicking a scenario that supports your argument. Even then the Terran is by default behind in your scenario because he saves energy. This alone is a cost already. The Terran has less than he would have had should he have keept MULEing. Did you even read my post? You're the one who is 'cherrypicking', completely quoting out of context. The Terran is RIGHTLY saving energy for scans against a midgame protoss because of the potential threat of DTs. He can safely mule AFTER he sees high templars with storm because now he knows there won't be DTs. Yet he actually had costs for that. By threathening DTs the Protoss decreases the Terrans Income compared to what it could be.
Correct. But that's NOT THE POINT. Try reading it again:
'Economically, the T is pretty even across both these scenarios. Yet it feels like the P should really be ahead from investing a lot into a storm drop. Unfortunately, because he reveals his tech by doing so, he allows the T to drop mules instead of save for scan and in reality doesn't actually hurt the T much.'
My point is that, harass vs no harass, the MULE makes it THE SAME for the Terran. When most people would agree that a successful harass should disadvantage the player being harassed.
|
On September 21 2010 01:27 LittleeD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 11:11 Mato wrote:On September 17 2010 15:54 kojinshugi wrote:On September 17 2010 14:03 me_viet wrote:
Supply Depots ARE imba =P
How is it fair that you can wall-off completely and still have the option of moving out with all possible units?
Toss can't wall-off completely. If they wall-off with gate + core or 2gate, it means they can't go immortals and have to research blink for all stalkers in-base to get out, or existing stalkers to get in to defend against drops. Different races are different. For fuck's sake, Starcraft is a game of ASYMMETRY. Zerg morph workers into buildings. Terran workers stand there and build. Toss workers just start the warp in and go on their merry way. Toss can wall off completely just fine, because warp gates let them spawn units anywhere on the map with pylon power. Not that you need to wall off completely in the first place, since you can use very strong melee units (something that Terran doesn't have) to block any early ling or zealot pressure in the gaps. Mid-game, you have force fields. Zerg can't wall off at all because all their units are spawned at their town hall. In turn, zerg gets Creep, which gives them a really massive home ground advantage. Races also differ in their production methods. Zerg are highly reactionary and can produce 20 mutalisks just as easily as 20 roaches, all from the same larvae. Protoss mech and air have build times but their varied infantry and casters are all spawned instantly anywhere on the map via warp gates, in whatever combination required. Terran are the least reactionary, due to every one of their units having a build time. This is why they are also the most defensive and turtle-oriented, and why zerg are least defensive - zerg can reinforce entire armies in one production cycle while terran needs to spend multiple production cycles to pump out the same number of units. Protoss is somewhere in between, since they can always warp in units to defend or reinforce. For vision and mobility, zerg are by far ahead of every other race by design. Their food buildings are flying units that can be spread around the map for vision. Creep removes fog of war at zero mineral cost (only queen energy) and greatly boosts unit speed. When zerg has map control, they don't use fortified positions but rather control territory with the thread of multi-pronged, fast reactions to anyone entering. Protoss are again a middle ground, in that they can use relatively small, mobile forces to control territory and reinforce them through pylons placed in key locations. Protoss vision is nearly a map hack until the enemy has detection. Terran has by far the poorest vision of the map, and map control is achieved by entrenched positions and chokepoints. Which is why they're good at turtling. This is what makes the game good. This is why Starcraft was a revolutionary RTS. If you're pining for an RTS where all races can do the same crap, only with different graphics, then please delete your SC2 folder now. Great post. Seconded that. Best post in this thread for sure. Out of discussion but I still want to point out that Wc3 is also built in this way, which also makes it just that good of a game like SC/SC2 is.
Yeah, I just LOVE watching those orc versus orc tournaments! Undead being unable to regenerate health while moving when off the creep, I mean blight, was totally justified because it made different races different! It's not like it pigeonholed the entire race into getting one particular hero to counter the disadvantage every single game, after all! Why, just look at how successfully Warcraft 3 displaced BW in the e-sports scene!
Okay, that was mean-spirited. But you can't just go 'different races are different lol' to justify every single mechanic in their current implementations. At some point you have to start asking yourself if the disadvantages and advantages involved in any particular race's design features actually match up fairly or not. If you don't care, so long as they're asymmetrical, then your expectations are remarkably low.
I'm not a fan of homogenization of game mechanics. It turned World of Warcraft into a game I don't even want to play anymore. But going too far in the other direction, holding up uniqueness in game mechanics at the cost of all else, is just as bad. A new faction with no air would be unique, but it would suck to play.
|
On September 16 2010 23:20 fiskrens wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2010 22:03 MoreFasho wrote:
Also, my biggest pet peeve is morons saying a scan "costs" 270 minerals. If a scan costs 270 minerals, then all zerg buildings cost INFINITE minerals since those guys could have otherwise kept mining. Yeah, that's right. A zerg building is worth shit tons of minerals if that drone would get to mine for the whole game and you wouldnt produce another one to replace it, but that's not really how it goes. When it comes to the CC, you choose between scan, a mule or a supply drop. How exactly is it not fair to say that a scan or supply drop costs 270 minerals when people are calling a mule free 270-300 minerals all the time? There must always be something new to whine about tho, I understand.
If they end up nerfing the mule it will make scans cheaper then!
|
To every1 who says "picture says it all"... First, please take a closer look. Both playes only have 2 bases. TWO BASES. And both mains are soon to be mined out. So, HuK has 54 workers on pretty much 1.5 bases. And MorroW has 19 harvasters and probably 2-3 mules.
The thing is. Everytime people takes a look at the income tab and there is a mule up, the Terran income is TEMPORARILY really high, and that is all because of the "big chunk" of minerals the mule gathers every trip (30 minerals that is). And what 30 mineral does is a hugh impact on the Mineral tab because it's calculating mineral per min. And in your "OMG BBQ MULE OP" moment you don't think about that 1 mule only gives you 270 mineral over it's entier lifetime.
And when it comes to protoss. The protoss player can very easily get an early (and longterm) economical advantage over the terran just by mass chronoboosting probes.
In the next terran replay you watch, please check the income tab when the terran has no mule on the map. You will be suprised, that both Protoss and Zerg has an higher average income then the terran.
The reason why Blizzard gave terran the Mule is just so the terran could keep up in the macro game. And now you think,"YEAH BUT LOOK AT THE INCOME TAB U FOOL", sigh. then again let me remind you that it acually only gives you 270 minerals. And the protoss, (and zerg) usually have quite alot more harvasters then terran (on a high level of play).
An Orbital command is considered 4 workers. but then again that's if you spend all your energy on mules and no scans.
I hope this made sence to atleast some of you even tho my typing is horrible. I'm from Sweden, cy@
|
If terran had chronoboost and protoss had mules, people would say that chronoboost is OP.
|
On September 21 2010 00:23 Unentschieden wrote:
What, suddenly Terrans have no specific disadvantages anymore? Their Buildings no longer lose HP on their own when in red? Construction can no longer be interrupted by killing the worker? Restoring HP no longer costs resources?
Or to be more specific to MULEs, constructing a OC no longer prevents that OC from becoming a PF or loading in SCVs? They don´t draw from the same energypool as Scan?
Wow, those sound like horrible disadvantages. I'm glad my race can use its third backup detection ability without having to sacrifice economy for it! 
|
On September 21 2010 01:53 Trawler wrote:
The reason why Blizzard gave terran the Mule is just so the terran could keep up in the macro game. And now you think,"YEAH BUT LOOK AT THE INCOME TAB U FOOL", sigh. then again let me remind you that it acually only gives you 270 minerals. And the protoss, (and zerg) usually have quite alot more harvasters then terran (on a high level of play).
ahaa, think and you wont need too
lets look at this unfortunate screenshot first
terran camp, 2 bases, no gas mined
19 workers x 42 mpm + 2 mule x 270 mpm = 1338
why 2 mules? cause you can support 2 mules constantly from 2 orbitals
protoss camp, 2 bases, 12 workers on gas, so 21 workers per base if optimally distributed
21 workers % 16 saturation * 2 bases * 24 mpm + 16 workers * 2 * 42 mpm = 1584
now lets see what happens if terran has 19 workers per base, cause 3-4 are 'always building' so its only fair to comparing to 21? oh, and 2 constant mules
19 % 16 * 2 * 24 + 16 * 2 * 42 + 2 * 270 = 1758
mhmm, so by having 4 workers less we have 174 minerals per minute more...
let see how saturation helps non terrans
24 % 16 * 2 * 24 + 16 * 2 * 42 = 1728
oh gee, terran is 10 scv behind yet still eeks ahead by 30 mpm
with this theres no doubt they WILL STAY UP in the macro game, like on blue pill baby!
|
On September 21 2010 01:42 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 01:27 LittleeD wrote:On September 19 2010 11:11 Mato wrote:On September 17 2010 15:54 kojinshugi wrote:On September 17 2010 14:03 me_viet wrote:
Supply Depots ARE imba =P
How is it fair that you can wall-off completely and still have the option of moving out with all possible units?
Toss can't wall-off completely. If they wall-off with gate + core or 2gate, it means they can't go immortals and have to research blink for all stalkers in-base to get out, or existing stalkers to get in to defend against drops. Different races are different. For fuck's sake, Starcraft is a game of ASYMMETRY. Zerg morph workers into buildings. Terran workers stand there and build. Toss workers just start the warp in and go on their merry way. Toss can wall off completely just fine, because warp gates let them spawn units anywhere on the map with pylon power. Not that you need to wall off completely in the first place, since you can use very strong melee units (something that Terran doesn't have) to block any early ling or zealot pressure in the gaps. Mid-game, you have force fields. Zerg can't wall off at all because all their units are spawned at their town hall. In turn, zerg gets Creep, which gives them a really massive home ground advantage. Races also differ in their production methods. Zerg are highly reactionary and can produce 20 mutalisks just as easily as 20 roaches, all from the same larvae. Protoss mech and air have build times but their varied infantry and casters are all spawned instantly anywhere on the map via warp gates, in whatever combination required. Terran are the least reactionary, due to every one of their units having a build time. This is why they are also the most defensive and turtle-oriented, and why zerg are least defensive - zerg can reinforce entire armies in one production cycle while terran needs to spend multiple production cycles to pump out the same number of units. Protoss is somewhere in between, since they can always warp in units to defend or reinforce. For vision and mobility, zerg are by far ahead of every other race by design. Their food buildings are flying units that can be spread around the map for vision. Creep removes fog of war at zero mineral cost (only queen energy) and greatly boosts unit speed. When zerg has map control, they don't use fortified positions but rather control territory with the thread of multi-pronged, fast reactions to anyone entering. Protoss are again a middle ground, in that they can use relatively small, mobile forces to control territory and reinforce them through pylons placed in key locations. Protoss vision is nearly a map hack until the enemy has detection. Terran has by far the poorest vision of the map, and map control is achieved by entrenched positions and chokepoints. Which is why they're good at turtling. This is what makes the game good. This is why Starcraft was a revolutionary RTS. If you're pining for an RTS where all races can do the same crap, only with different graphics, then please delete your SC2 folder now. Great post. Seconded that. Best post in this thread for sure. Out of discussion but I still want to point out that Wc3 is also built in this way, which also makes it just that good of a game like SC/SC2 is. Yeah, I just LOVE watching those orc versus orc tournaments! Undead being unable to regenerate health while moving when off the creep, I mean blight, was totally justified because it made different races different! It's not like it pigeonholed the entire race into getting one particular hero to counter the disadvantage every single game, after all! Why, just look at how successfully Warcraft 3 displaced BW in the e-sports scene! Okay, that was mean-spirited. But you can't just go 'different races are different lol' to justify every single mechanic in their current implementations. At some point you have to start asking yourself if the disadvantages and advantages involved in any particular race's design features actually match up fairly or not. If you don't care, so long as they're asymmetrical, then your expectations are remarkably low. I'm not a fan of homogenization of game mechanics. It turned World of Warcraft into a game I don't even want to play anymore. But going too far in the other direction, holding up uniqueness in game mechanics at the cost of all else, is just as bad. A new faction with no air would be unique, but it would suck to play.
I feel like you have a very twisted and narrow-minded view of what WC3 is really all about. Now this cant be fully described by words but its soooo much more than just Orc mirrors doing the exact same heroes all the times or Undead being forced into play a certain way. WC3 has been out for so long that certain strats have become more dominant than other on the pro level of play, but there's a whole world underneath that which is not oftenly that greatly displayed but is obviously where the majority of players are and where the majority of variety happens. Its everything from Undead going Tinker/Mass skeleton strategies to orc doing wicked tower rushes and mass bat plays to night elves going crazy mass ancient strategies to Humans executing some bad-ass mortar/zeppelin drops (TH000 is a player to recommend among the pros). Really the variety of possible strategies and hero choices is what really does WC3 to the extremely amazing game it really is.
|
On September 21 2010 02:40 x7i wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 01:53 Trawler wrote:
The reason why Blizzard gave terran the Mule is just so the terran could keep up in the macro game. And now you think,"YEAH BUT LOOK AT THE INCOME TAB U FOOL", sigh. then again let me remind you that it acually only gives you 270 minerals. And the protoss, (and zerg) usually have quite alot more harvasters then terran (on a high level of play).
ahaa, think and you wont need too lets look at this unfortunate screenshot first terran camp, 2 bases, no gas mined 19 workers x 42 mpm + 2 mule x 270 mpm = 1338 why 2 mules? cause you can support 2 mules constantly from 2 orbitals protoss camp, 2 bases, 12 workers on gas, so 21 workers per base if optimally distributed 21 workers % 16 saturation * 2 bases * 24 mpm + 16 workers * 2 * 42 mpm = 1584 now lets see what happens if terran has 19 workers per base, cause 3-4 are 'always building' so its only fair to comparing to 21? oh, and 2 constant mules 19 % 16 * 2 * 24 + 16 * 2 * 42 + 2 * 270 = 1758 mhmm, so by having 4 workers less we have 174 minerals per minute more... let see how saturation helps non terrans 24 % 16 * 2 * 24 + 16 * 2 * 42 = 1728 oh gee, terran is 10 scv behind yet still eeks ahead by 30 mpm with this theres no doubt they WILL STAY UP in the macro game, like on blue pill baby!
lol math fail.
|
On September 21 2010 01:10 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 00:23 Unentschieden wrote:On September 20 2010 23:53 Koukalaka wrote:
- Zerg have creep > as a result their units are slower off of creep, and faster on creep.
Yeah. It´s like saying that because Terrans have MULES that they have more minerals with MULEs than they´d have without them. But you are probably trying to say that Zerg have a Mobility disadvantage - just not true. Queens and Hydras, every other Zerg unit is naturally fast enough for their role. If you want to abuse Zerg Immobility you need to 1. get them to use Hydras and 2. get rid of the Creep. In any other case mobility simply isn´t a Zerg problem especially figuring in Nydus. (Since you're replying to a guy who is paraphrasing me, I'm gonna take the liberty of responding here.) Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 01:10 Karkadinn wrote:
Whenever a Zerg points out some of the many weaknesses in Zerg units, the stock response is 'But Zerg are more mobile!'
That isn´t what I´m arguing. I´m arguing that Zerg are fine in Terms of mobility off creep and actually have an advantage on it. Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 01:10 Karkadinn wrote:
However, this generally does not apply in aggressive situations. You don't get your creep, and the problems with using Nydus for aggression are numerous. So you're left relying on the base mobility of the Zerg army. Which is, in fact, no better than any other army's except for zerglings and mutalisks.
I´d like to point out that, by your own argument, Zerg mobility off creep = other races mobility. Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 01:10 Karkadinn wrote:
All other units vary from average to unbearably slow in aggressive situations. While another player may look at this kind of mobility and think it's not so bad because they don't have much better themselves, it contradicts the fact that Zerg are weaker in other areas supposedly to make up for their incredible mobility... which has all kinds of conditions and restraints attached to it. "supposedly" being the important work. I actually think that Zerg being to weak is a balancing issue, not a design choice. Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 01:10 Karkadinn wrote:
Like the undead regeneration mechanic in Warcraft 3, there are more downsides than advantages to this supposed racial advantage. This is one of several things that leads Zerg to a frantically defensive playstyle where they're unable to dictate the flow of the game. Comparisons to Warcraft 3's undead versus an acolyte-whacking blademaster come to mind.
About the only thing equal between WC3 blight and SC2 creep is that the producing race can only place their nonmainbuildings on them. Otherwise the games and actual mechanics are so vastly different I just can´t see how to compare them. Lack of speed can´t be the issue with early Zerg aggression: as you said off creep they are "merely" as fast as the other races and that there are other issues. Do you really assume Blizzard assumes early agression/harrassment with creep while it´s absolutely impossible to have it there at that point? Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 00:23 Unentschieden wrote:On September 20 2010 23:53 Koukalaka wrote:
- Terran have mules > ... but their units are by far the most cost effective units in the game?
How exactly are they the most cost effective? Honestly, maybe it´s true but by what metric do you determine this? For just one example, compare and contrast the hydralisk to the marine in roughly equal costs.
A Hydralisk is almost twice as durable (which increases survivability immensly, especially with the upcoming Tanknerf), half effected by armor, equally fast basemovementspeed (remember, Hydras are the "slow" ones).
There are also plenty of things that are hard or even impossible to compare: what about the necessary investments in infrastructure? Do you think barracks are more effective than hatcherys?
What about the ability to burrow? The natural regeneration? The differences in Upgrades?
On September 21 2010 01:41 theSAiNT wrote:
Correct. But that's NOT THE POINT. Try reading it again:
'Economically, the T is pretty even across both these scenarios. Yet it feels like the P should really be ahead from investing a lot into a storm drop. Unfortunately, because he reveals his tech by doing so, he allows the T to drop mules instead of save for scan and in reality doesn't actually hurt the T much.'
My point is that, harass vs no harass, the MULE makes it THE SAME for the Terran. When most people would agree that a successful harass should disadvantage the player being harassed.
The same number in the income Tab for 90 seconds maybe. Are you honestly suggesting that losing SCVs or scanning without result are not losses for the Terran!?
On September 21 2010 02:36 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 00:23 Unentschieden wrote:
What, suddenly Terrans have no specific disadvantages anymore? Their Buildings no longer lose HP on their own when in red? Construction can no longer be interrupted by killing the worker? Restoring HP no longer costs resources?
Or to be more specific to MULEs, constructing a OC no longer prevents that OC from becoming a PF or loading in SCVs? They don´t draw from the same energypool as Scan? Wow, those sound like horrible disadvantages. I'm glad my race can use its third backup detection ability without having to sacrifice economy for it!
Funny how Blizzard gave each race unique (dis)advantages. It´s like they actually wanted them to be different while being equally powerfull.
If you are Protoss your mobile detection method is the one that DOESN`T tell the enemy he is being detected.
If you are Zerg your mobile detection doesn´t take up production infrastructure and is the fastest to build.
|
On September 21 2010 02:59 LittleeD wrote:
I feel like you have a very twisted and narrow-minded view of what WC3 is really all about. Now this cant be fully described by words but its soooo much more than just Orc mirrors doing the exact same heroes all the times or Undead being forced into play a certain way.
I've had experienced, competent players in team games immediately quit on me when I stated I was going a build that wasn't DK/fiends, regardless of map and matchup. WC3's gameplay is utterly, utterly stagnant. Even SC2 is a million years ahead of WC3 in terms of tactical diversity. I don't want to see another potentially good game screwed over like that.
On September 21 2010 02:59 LittleeD wrote:
WC3 has been out for so long that specific strats has become more dominant than other on the pro level of play, but there's a whole world underneath that which is not oftenly that greatly displayed but is obviously where the majority of players are and where the majority of variety happens. Its everything from Undead going Tinker/Mass skeleton strategies to orc doing wicked tower rushes and mass bat plays to night elves going crazy mass ancient strategies to Humans executing some bad-ass mortar/zeppelin drops (TH000 is a player to recommend among the pros). Really the variety of possible strategies and hero choices is what really does WC3 to the extremely amazing game it really is.
Even at low levels of play, if you avoid cookie cutter, your chances of winning are reduced, regardless of all else. Warcraft 3 did a wonderful job of presenting the player with a ton of options. It did an amazingly horrible job of making 99% of those options practical or useful. Yes, there's technically nothing stopping you from being creative and massing troll headhunters or gargoyles, but you're gimping yourself for it. Unlike Starcraft, Warcraft doesn't have a fluid unit-based 'build this to counter that' gameplay. Instead, it's 'build your best units regardless of whatever the other player is up to, and power level your hero.' Sure, you can be creative and build whatever versus worse opponents and still win... but no one cares, because those aren't the games that count.
|
I'm of the opinion that MULEs should have a cooldown timer so if a Terran misses his timing, he cannot immediately drain his CC of energy. It would prevent MULE spam and obscene amounts of income and possibly balance the matchups a bit. Spawn larva essentially already has one from the hatchery's end and a Z who misses a cast is SOL.
Of course I'm no pro so there would have to be some serious balance testing done first.
|
On September 21 2010 03:28 hmunkey wrote:
I'm of the opinion that MULEs should have a cooldown timer so if a Terran misses his timing, he cannot immediately drain his CC of energy. It would prevent MULE spam and obscene amounts of income and possibly balance the matchups a bit. Spawn larva essentially already has one from the hatchery's end and a Z who misses a cast is SOL.
Of course I'm no pro so there would have to be some serious balance testing done first.
Punishing lazy play needs testing?
A cooldown to both Mules and Chrono Boost should have been added, respectively, when Larva Spit had a cooldown and I play Protoss at 1500-1600~.
|
On September 21 2010 03:08 Unentschieden wrote:
"supposedly" being the important work. I actually think that Zerg being to weak is a balancing issue, not a design choice.
That more or less sidesteps the whole mobility issue, then, I suppose. I won't strawman you deliberately.
On September 21 2010 03:08 Unentschieden wrote:
A Hydralisk is almost twice as durable (which increases survivability immensly, especially with the upcoming Tanknerf), half effected by armor, equally fast basemovementspeed (remember, Hydras are the "slow" ones).
There are also plenty of things that are hard or even impossible to compare: what about the necessary investments in infrastructure? Do you think barracks are more effective than hatcherys?
What about the ability to burrow? The natural regeneration? The differences in Upgrades?
You apparently missed the 'roughly equal costs' part, because hydralisks are in no way twice as durable for the cost. For the sake of argument, let's say that two marines = 1 hydralisk. The hydralisk still costs 50 gas in addition to being equal in mineral cost, so it should be moderately slanted towards the Zerg being more powerful.
T1 for marines versus T2 for hydralisks. Marine can match hydralisk's creep speed anywhere he wants with stim. Our two marines have 10 more hp even without Combat Shield, with CS puts them at +30 over the hydralisk. Stimming also kicks their DPS over that of the hydralisk, obviously.
If you honestly think burrow, 0.2734 hp regen per second, and a +1 range upgrade make the hydralisk worth 50 gas over the marines, I want some of what you're smokin'.
|
On September 21 2010 03:25 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 02:59 LittleeD wrote:
WC3 has been out for so long that specific strats has become more dominant than other on the pro level of play, but there's a whole world underneath that which is not oftenly that greatly displayed but is obviously where the majority of players are and where the majority of variety happens. Its everything from Undead going Tinker/Mass skeleton strategies to orc doing wicked tower rushes and mass bat plays to night elves going crazy mass ancient strategies to Humans executing some bad-ass mortar/zeppelin drops (TH000 is a player to recommend among the pros). Really the variety of possible strategies and hero choices is what really does WC3 to the extremely amazing game it really is. Even at low levels of play, if you avoid cookie cutter, your chances of winning are reduced, regardless of all else. Warcraft 3 did a wonderful job of presenting the player with a ton of options. It did an amazingly horrible job of making 99% of those options practical or useful. Yes, there's technically nothing stopping you from being creative and massing troll headhunters or gargoyles, but you're gimping yourself for it. Unlike Starcraft, Warcraft doesn't have a fluid unit-based 'build this to counter that' gameplay. Instead, it's 'build your best units regardless of whatever the other player is up to, and power level your hero.' Sure, you can be creative and build whatever versus worse opponents and still win... but no one cares, because those aren't the games that count.
I disagree. Firstly, yes WC3 doesnt have the same Rock-paper-scissors mechanics like SC2 but definitely has units that works better vs other types of units (armor types), but its more complex. In WC3 you always have to regard to the heroes, but its not like the picture you painted. In order to level your heroes you need to always be aware of the threat of being creep-jacked which will end up in terrible news for you and its also because of the heroes the same mechanics doesnt exist. But you cant go any units you want, creep the map and think thats gonna win you any games (atleast vs somewhat good players).
No, what I meant with my post is that you can still be creative in WC3 and still (yes after 8 years from release) utilize very unusual strategies to win you games. Its a strategy game after all (Like SC) where brain pays a huge roll. Everyone seems to think WC3 is all about leveling your hero, doing some certain units and win from there but its actually far more complex than that.
To Summarize: Wc3,SC|BW and SC2 are different games but are all amazing in its own way, WC3 has variety, great micro opportunities and intense moments, SC has high APM matches with huge amount of economical haras and multitasking and I guess SC2 ends up somewhere in between but more leaning towards its prequel.
PS: WC3 also requires a big amount of scouting and its not about doing some random good units no matter what your opponent is doing. You have a false sight of WC3
|
On September 21 2010 03:08 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 02:36 Karkadinn wrote:On September 21 2010 00:23 Unentschieden wrote:
What, suddenly Terrans have no specific disadvantages anymore? Their Buildings no longer lose HP on their own when in red? Construction can no longer be interrupted by killing the worker? Restoring HP no longer costs resources?
Or to be more specific to MULEs, constructing a OC no longer prevents that OC from becoming a PF or loading in SCVs? They don´t draw from the same energypool as Scan? Wow, those sound like horrible disadvantages. I'm glad my race can use its third backup detection ability without having to sacrifice economy for it! Funny how Blizzard gave each race unique (dis)advantages. It´s like they actually wanted them to be different while being equally powerfull. If you are Protoss your mobile detection method is the one that DOESN`T tell the enemy he is being detected. If you are Zerg your mobile detection doesn´t take up production infrastructure and is the fastest to build.
(I apologize if I'm getting the quote nesting mixed up, this is getting pretty thick.)
The point of that response was to point out that you can't flaunt a tactical option that other races simply don't have and then point to its limitations and say those count as genuine disadvantages. One person can't do X. You can do X if you want to, but it costs you Z. Having extra options that have costs attached is not a drawback compared to not having those options at all.
|
LittleeD: This is getting off topic even by my standards, so if you want to collect your thoughts and debate this more in a thread in a more suitable forum, or in PMs, I'm up with it. But I'd rather not derail this thread more than I already have.
|
On September 16 2010 17:27 LittleeD wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2010 17:22 Demand2k wrote:
If Morrow didn't have enough energy for that many mules, he probably wouldn't have lost the battle as he'd have more units prior to the battle. Anyone can throw down six mules at once after they've neglected them for ages. You can also forget to Chrono boost or inject larva during/right before a fight, but that will hurt you in the long run, which forgetting about mules wont.
Well in this example morrow lost like 50 workers and his entire army, so obviously neglecting all those mules was really really REALLY bad for him wasn't it? Didn't see the replay but say he dropped down 6 mules.. that's 36 marines.. could've been a pretty big difference I'd say.
Sorry if my math fails me by the way.. havn't slept for two days :'(
|
yah i watched one of my replays the other day where i had essentially destroyed all of his SCVs excluding 8 at and expo he had, He called in like 6 Mules at once and was Tied with my econ which stunned me because i had 47 drones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
