| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sylvr
United States524 Posts
whereas in SC2 the workers go directly to the fucking minerals AND they just patched out the 7% delay. incredibly efficient workers means you need less of them. They didn't take out the delay. They took out the ability to bypass the delay. Reread the patch notes. | ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
| ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:41 vica wrote: They went directly to the minerals. They just didn't go BACK directly. You didn't stop simply because you took more bases. If we go into this, it extends beyond simple worker and mineral interaction, but Brood War gameplay. So we'll stop here. On October 07 2010 12:41 Sylvr wrote: They didn't take out the delay. They took out the ability to bypass the delay. Reread the patch notes. ??? its incredibly obvious you dont actually know what you're talking about when you nitpick tiny little things like that On October 07 2010 12:40 smegged wrote: Many core units cost more food than their broodwar equivalents. Siege tanks cost 3 up from 2 Hydras cost 2 up from 1 You need more workers (double the number of gas workers) Thors cost a lot more food than goliaths (and against zerg perform a similar role) There was also the addition of Roaches and Marauders, both of which are early game 2 food units that have no BW equivalent. that doesn't mean anything those are just changes zerg got roaches but lost lurker hydra went up but there are no scourge siege tanks are more but vulture support is traded with marine in a lot of cases etc etc | ||
|
Genome852
United States979 Posts
Either way, I'm happy with the change (when it comes). Desert Oasis and Kulas were my least favorite maps by far. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:46 mOnion wrote: ??? its incredibly obvious you dont actually know what you're talking about when you nitpick tiny little things like that that doesn't mean anything those are just changes You said worker efficiency means less workers. I said worker efficiency does not mean anything. You argued you needed more workers to saturate a base for income. I replied you saturated faster with less workers. | ||
|
Iggyhopper
United States259 Posts
| ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:49 Genome852 wrote: When I saw Jungle Basin, I thought it was just an inverted Steppes of War image. Either way, I'm happy with the change (when it comes). Desert Oasis and Kulas were my least favorite maps by far. And you're about to get two new least favourite maps! How exciting! Oh... wait.. do you play Terran? | ||
|
DrakanSilva
Chile932 Posts
hopefully they take them out of the ladder ASAP. | ||
|
Merikh
United States918 Posts
| ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:50 vica wrote: You said worker efficiency means less workers. I said worker efficiency does not mean anything. You argued you needed more workers to saturate a base for income. I replied you saturated faster with less workers. all you said was the difference between workers "getting to minerals" and "getting BACK to minerals" then said something ambiguous and hit post | ||
|
Toxiferous
United States388 Posts
 I loved oasis man | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
| ||
|
Shifft
Canada1085 Posts
| ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
I'm not arguing for the map, but on Jungle basin, as zerg why wouldn't you destroy the rocks at your nat and take the high ground 3rd? You would be on 3 base with only 2 high ground ramps to defend. Seems reasonable. Only problem I see is that Terran can get 3 easy bases with only 2 high ground ramps to defend as well. Going turtle-tank terran is gunna be really strong | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
| ||
|
Merikh
United States918 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:58 Beef Noodles wrote: @Subversion I'm not arguing for the map, but on Jungle basin, as zerg why wouldn't you destroy the rocks at your nat and take the high ground 3rd? You would be on 3 base with only 2 high ground ramps to defend. Seems reasonable. Only problem I see is that Terran can get 3 easy bases with only 2 high ground ramps to defend as well. Going turtle-tank terran is gunna be really strong Defensive nydus  with mass crawlers baby lets go! | ||
|
Ojahh
Ireland728 Posts
but Jungle Basin looks cool, from the preview, somehow never played that map as custom, will give it a couple of tries. the shakuras plateau seems an awful choice, total russian roulette | ||
|
smegged
Australia213 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:58 Beef Noodles wrote: @Subversion I'm not arguing for the map, but on Jungle basin, as zerg why wouldn't you destroy the rocks at your nat and take the high ground 3rd? You would be on 3 base with only 2 high ground ramps to defend. Seems reasonable. Only problem I see is that Terran can get 3 easy bases with only 2 high ground ramps to defend as well. Going turtle-tank terran is gunna be really strong If your opponent is pressuring you as zerg it is very difficult to kill the rocks in any reasonable amount of time. No +armoured units as zerg = fail design when it comes to rocks. | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
DreamSailor
Canada433 Posts
On October 07 2010 12:57 Shifft wrote: DO was like my favourite map in the pool...Jungle Basin looks awful as fuck and Shakuras Plateau has a 2/3 chance of being terrible, and 1/3 chance of only being terrible against a Terran who abuses tanks. Colossus can also abuse the cliffs to attack refineries ala Steppes of War. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
OSC
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
