|
On December 01 2010 21:39 Stormstealth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 20:33 Grend wrote:
I just realized that the day terrans perfect marine control, banelings will be completely useless. Blings rely solely on the opponent being bad so they will probably become phazed out in high play,(Except on creep with speed upgrade I guess.) If the terran spreads out his marines, then even perfectly microed blings will result in a minimum 2-1 ratio. 100 min, and 50 gas for a marine? Thats a concrete example of how terran skill ceiling is higher. With flanks and pincer attacks this isn't as true as it could be but yeh you have a point.
and then zergs ability to take prevent that with infestors, take advantage of it with brood lords/hydras/Lings (perfectly spread = less units attacking and much more surface area) makes zerg yet again higher skill ceiling.
(and then you counter that and then i counter you ect ect).
|
On December 02 2010 07:21 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 21:39 Stormstealth wrote:On December 01 2010 20:33 Grend wrote:
I just realized that the day terrans perfect marine control, banelings will be completely useless. Blings rely solely on the opponent being bad so they will probably become phazed out in high play,(Except on creep with speed upgrade I guess.) If the terran spreads out his marines, then even perfectly microed blings will result in a minimum 2-1 ratio. 100 min, and 50 gas for a marine? Thats a concrete example of how terran skill ceiling is higher. With flanks and pincer attacks this isn't as true as it could be but yeh you have a point. and then zergs ability to take prevent that with infestors, take advantage of it with brood lords/hydras/Lings (perfectly spread = less units attacking and much more surface area) makes zerg yet again higher skill ceiling. (and then you counter that and then i counter you ect ect).
If you read his post carefully, you'd see that his definition of "skill ceiling" is basically the number of branching paths.
E.g., if I were to do an algorithm to find out all the possible moves with alpha-pruning, then terran has a lot, because there are so many moves that we can't rule out as "the worst possible move".
And yes, because zerg has more "units", it should have more branching paths. But this is why I saw "with alpha pruning", because most of those paths can be considered a stupid move.
[Note: If you read my posts, I usually refer back to econ/math/cs. It's GG then~]
|
On December 02 2010 08:30 ScythedBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 07:21 PrinceXizor wrote:On December 01 2010 21:39 Stormstealth wrote:On December 01 2010 20:33 Grend wrote:
I just realized that the day terrans perfect marine control, banelings will be completely useless. Blings rely solely on the opponent being bad so they will probably become phazed out in high play,(Except on creep with speed upgrade I guess.) If the terran spreads out his marines, then even perfectly microed blings will result in a minimum 2-1 ratio. 100 min, and 50 gas for a marine? Thats a concrete example of how terran skill ceiling is higher. With flanks and pincer attacks this isn't as true as it could be but yeh you have a point. and then zergs ability to take prevent that with infestors, take advantage of it with brood lords/hydras/Lings (perfectly spread = less units attacking and much more surface area) makes zerg yet again higher skill ceiling. (and then you counter that and then i counter you ect ect). If you read his post carefully, you'd see that his definition of "skill ceiling" is basically the number of branching paths. E.g., if I were to do an algorithm to find out all the possible moves with alpha-pruning, then terran has a lot, because there are so many moves that we can't rule out as "the worst possible move". And yes, because zerg has more "units", it should have more branching paths. But this is why I saw "with alpha pruning", because most of those paths can be considered a stupid move. [Note: If you read my posts, I usually refer back to econ/math/cs. It's GG then~]
marines were considered a stupid move vs banelings.  Knowledge of the game has to be complete in order to say which paths are not worth taking.
|
I think Hots and LoTV will open up some options for zerg and protoss.
|
I'm not really interested in unit micro, though. I only brought that up in the OP to show that it's a contested issue
A Contested issue, yet you say that "Common sense usually holds that Terrans are the most micro-intensive race" also in the OP.
Great mix of words. Just like the title.
|
On November 30 2010 14:55 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 14:39 DoubleReed wrote:The Baneling is actually an AMAZING example of just what I'm talking about when I say natural synergy. You have a race that can burrow, you give them a unit that blows up, bam, a natural combination. Problem is, that's one legit, viable combination. Terrans have one of those for every single mech unit they got. And Protoss.. they've got nothing at all. Well certainly warp prism and warp gate have natural synergy. One warps units into a power field, and the other puts a power field anywhere. That's about as natural as you can get. Saying "but that's just what its supposed to do" isn't fair. MULEs can repair, so obviously dropping them to repair in a Thor Drop is something they're supposed to do. I will give you Warp Prisms as an example of otherwise lacking Protoss synergy, but I won't give you MULE repair being intentional. :p The repair itself, certainly, but not this bizarro combination that players have been taking advantage of -- Thor's power, MULEs' teleport, and repair. Show nested quote +I do think Nydus Worms have tons of application in a ton of situations. There's 101 ways to use them, honestly, and not all of them are straightforward. Similarly, Infested Terran can actually be used to do all sorts of things that you wouldn't necessarily think of. Screwing up Tanks, granting sight, forming a wall... Whatever happened to not bringing unit micro into the discussion? ?: (
These are all assumptions there is no way in the world anyone outside of blizzard knows what was intentional or not. Logic would point that these possible scenario's such as dropping mules by thors are intentional. Sure there are going to be somethings that go through the crack. It sounds like your saying that Blizzard gave zerg and protoss to one person to develop with no oversight and Terran was put together and designed by a team that didn't collaborate with each other on the final design choices and just shipped the game without test.
10 years to make this game and a idea as simple as dropping a mule to repair a thor deployed to the battle field is something that they probably did to themselves, if the community discovered it in less than 6 months. Let's be reasonable. Putting supply depots in the mineral line isn't nothing spectacular even if your just using it as an example again the community figured they could do this in less than 6 months. It would be foolish to think blizzard didn't try something like this themselves while they were 6-pooling themselves during testing. Anything that blizzard does't want in the game they can easily take out. Abusive strategies is what they can't forsee sometimes. Supply depot submerge, mules repairing thors deployed to the battlefield (which is the same concept as deploying them to a island mineral line) are things im sure blizzard thought of. Terrans can float building since BW and Terrans are the race that used islands the most in BW why wouldn't they ever think hey lets allow terran to mule to a island expansion.
Was the supply depot designed with submerge just to wall-in? Many terrans don't wall in TvP or TvT anymore. Was submerge designed to save space so that terrans would have more room to place there stuff and supply depots werent getting in the way of troops? Common sense should point out that many of these so called un-intended uses are probably intended or at least known about before the game released and there weren't removed on purpose.
|
On December 02 2010 09:07 jambam wrote:
I think Hots and LoTV will open up some options for zerg and protoss.
Personally, I'd rather not wait on some mythical knight in shining armor with a 50$ price tag. I'm playing the game NOW and want to deal with the things that protoss have and can utilize NOW.
|
Sorry but I wouldn't agree with the "common sense" that Terran is the micro race. Hasn't Protoss always been considered the "micro-race" even if they don't necessarily need to micro, whatever that means? Perhaps this role is switched around in sc2, but in SC1, the idea was this
Zerg = macro, swarm (less micro)
Terran = middle, middle
Protoss = micro, less but strong units
|
On December 10 2010 05:41 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Sorry but I wouldn't agree with the "common sense" that Terran is the micro race. Hasn't Protoss always been considered the "micro-race" even if they don't necessarily need to micro, whatever that means? Perhaps this role is switched around in sc2, but in SC1, the idea was this
Zerg = macro, swarm (less micro)
Terran = middle, middle
Protoss = micro, less but strong units
Protoss had the least micro in BW relative to the other races. You didn't have to babysit your units as much. You could F2 back to your base pretty safely during battle. This is one of the reasons that people say that protoss was the easiest race to play in BW.
|
On December 10 2010 05:41 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Sorry but I wouldn't agree with the "common sense" that Terran is the micro race. Hasn't Protoss always been considered the "micro-race" even if they don't necessarily need to micro, whatever that means? Perhaps this role is switched around in sc2, but in SC1, the idea was this
Zerg = macro, swarm (less micro)
Terran = middle, middle
Protoss = micro, less but strong units
actually it depended a lot. in order of micro requirements, ignoring mirrors:
bio tvz > pvz = bio zvt > zvp > mech zvt > mech tvz ~ tvp = pvt.
basically, protoss in sc2 is the race which is clearly the strongest on utterly terrible mechanics. but at the same time, it is the race for which micro is the most essential on higher lvls of play. ffs, storm, feedback, blink, phoenix play, colossi babysitting, splitting templar against emp, vr charge juggling, positioning an army in which the ranged units run faster than the melees, the shield mechanics extremely rewarding saving units etc.
if strategy, bo, macro and decision-making are all on a high lvl, then protoss is the race which will yield the worst results if the player is barely microing at all.
|
Is this thread still around?
Yes, Terrans definitely did get the most cool stuff. I blame it on the development and Blizzard putting out the Terran campaign first. They definitely built terran first, and then constructed the other two races "around" a finished one, with some alterations.
More stuff = more options. I just hope Zerg and Protoss get some wicked game-changing stuff in the next two expansions.
PS: Anybody else predicting the Zerg gets a bit more "romanticized" in HotS? Kind of like how Orcs in Warcraft went from being bloodthirsty evildoers into tribal shamans. I expect Zerg to turn into some "force of nature" bullshit.
|
On December 10 2010 05:50 Black Gun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 05:41 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Sorry but I wouldn't agree with the "common sense" that Terran is the micro race. Hasn't Protoss always been considered the "micro-race" even if they don't necessarily need to micro, whatever that means? Perhaps this role is switched around in sc2, but in SC1, the idea was this
Zerg = macro, swarm (less micro)
Terran = middle, middle
Protoss = micro, less but strong units
actually it depended a lot. in order of micro requirements, ignoring mirrors: bio tvz > pvz = bio zvt > zvp > mech zvt > mech tvz ~ tvp = pvt. basically, protoss in sc2 is the race which is clearly the strongest on utterly terrible mechanics. but at the same time, it is the race for which micro is the most essential on higher lvls of play. ffs, storm, feedback, blink, phoenix play, colossi babysitting, splitting templar against emp, vr charge juggling, positioning an army in which the ranged units run faster than the melees, the shield mechanics extremely rewarding saving units etc. if strategy, bo, macro and decision-making are all on a high lvl, then protoss is the race which will yield the worst results if the player is barely microing at all.
eh.. i disagree. I play protoss very little besides FFA and custom games (like sc1 + 2 total conversion) and first off, things like storming and forcefields are the easiest thing to do. hold down f or t and click once per .3 seconds or whatever it is. its a fine tuned skill but easily, easily mastered and will be more or less the same for any situation.
the old void ray mechanics were definitely micro intensive, holding a level 3 charge and the fazing the beams vs small targets was insane, when seen done correctly. However, stalker blinking/shield rearrangement is the same for any race. you need to run back groups of 10 marines (rather than 1 stalker) to an incoming baneling ball. zerg vs zerg roach wars benefits those who focus fire with groups of 4-5 roaches while moving focused roaches back, as well as forming a faster concave.
baby sitting collosi isnt even close compared to managing a siege tank line...
all in all, protoss micro is the easiest, because they have the least "nifty"(marine split, baneling carpet bomb, no more void ray charge juggle) techniques, and share the basic techniques with the other races (concave, focus fire retreat and focusing key targets, baby sitting important units and spell casters)
|
On November 29 2010 14:20 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 14:18 Loser777 wrote:
If you're not walling off, placing the depot next to the mineral line is the most efficient use of resources, as SCVs can return to mining immediately after --there's a reason for that, it's not "because they can". Try as they might, Protoss can't place their Pylon in the middle of their mineral line, although that would be just as resource efficient.
Probes dont have to sit there and build the building. So thats even more flexible, plus they have shields.
|
Makes sense, considering it is the terran expansion and a lot of stuff still has yet to become fully utilitzed, too bad every Terran at the moment is too focused on all in mass marine builds.
They have the most tools and neat little perks the other races don't really get. A slow effect, instant walling/dewalling, cloaked air unit (that's worth a darn), building armor upgrade, turret range, bunker space upgrade, orbital command with instant supply production/mules/detection, reaper drops, units with 9+ range, repair, liftoff, high unit retention and on and on..
Yeah they have more things they can do, but terran isn't hard to play. Mechanically Zerg is much tougher since they have to rely so heavily on masses of weak units and if your macro slips once it could be gg.
|
Some problems with protoss.
Stalkers don't synergize with anything. They are kinda just decent units in a bunch of situations. They don't provide enough dps when tanking with zealots. They have too low of health and armor to be considered "tough", but they are protosses only anti-air unless they build a starport, but the problem is, starport units suck in battle until you get a critical amount. Also the immortal is a bizarre unit. It's great dps, but it has such bad AI that it mostly does nothing if you have too many stalkers. Also they don't shoot up. How awesome would it be if immortals could shoot up? Immortals and stalkers also take the exact same resource ratio requirements (2 stalkers = 1 immortal). Except that the immortal is terrible against marines and lings.
For protoss, innovation won't come around microing units, there's nothing to micro. You used to use void rays, but now they suck (without speed). You can do some blink stuff early, but it doesn't help mid/late game. Charge AI is bad and concussive shells makes zealots bad. (charging against lings is a bad idea as it will cause them to get surrounded.). Phoenix are cool, but require more micro than mutas and aren't nearly as strong in battle.
One thing that is important to note is how quickly units die, which is almost more important that dps. Terran is good not only because of their dps and rage, but because they can get off a ton of shots because even getting hit. Try microing collosus against vikings? A ball of 8 vikings can like 2 shot a collosus. Who cares if the vikings all die eventually due to stalkers, vikings kill colllosus much faster than protoss can kill the vikings.
PvT i think will eventually move away from the collosus. Collosus are simply too expensive and countered too easily to last. They will be around, but less frequently i think. I think instead, that templar tech will be researched a lot faster. The future of protoss might be 2 gate robo -> twilight council (charge) -> HT off of 2 bases. Early units will revolve around the zealot, immortal and sentry. With cheap observers, scouting will be less of a problem so if protosss sees the banshee play, protoss can simply make 4-5 stalkers and be ahead, but cutting stalkers will be important.
Mid game play will be mostly about surviving until storm and amulet are done and denying the terran a third base. Taking a 3rd in pvt is simply too risky against timing pushes right now and i highly doubt that will change. Once storm is out, protoss can then transition into collosus because templar are actually really good against vikings. Late game armies are going to be zealot/immortal/HT -> zealot/collosus/HT.
I could be really wrong, but I think stalkers and collosi are used waaaaaaaay too much right now and immortals/HT are not. Void rays are now terrible against terran and phoenix play will be used as an alternative to sentry play if terran goes the mech route (since forcefields don't help against siege tanks). Now, there is one more thing to consider. If you are successful in staying equal and getting to 3 bases with this composition, you can effectively transition into carriers. The final death ball of protoss will consist of chargelots/high templar/carriers. I can't think of a good combination against this for terran at all. The key will be to hide the carrier tech as long as possible. Proxying 2 stargates and not using the carriers until you have 4 of them minimum and then hitting as soon as possible. Marines are good against both carriers and decent against chargelots, but not against both at the same time. Essentially what i'm saying is that protoss is the turtle/timing attack race.
Very little micro is required to pull all of this off. Also getting a third base in PvT will basically be GG if protoss can do it because they will be able to get those high tech units. Protoss low tier units are too ineffective in the mid game, that teching will be the way for protoss to win.
Terran on the other hand has a terrible end game. The minute that high templar are out is when MMM is dead. This is when terran starts making tanks or thors and marauders (since they have more health than marines). The thing is, if protoss can stop marine production outright, the they can counter marauders hard with immortals and carriers. The thing is, immortals are countered by marines and banshees, but marines and banshees are both bad against carrier/chargelot.
Who knows, maybe sc2 will never get out of this hyper agressive mode. If it does, then protoss gets a lot more exciting.
|
On November 29 2010 14:06 pure.Wasted wrote:
The question remains “why?” Why do Terrans get a building that can fly, take in SCVs, and cast 3 different versatile spells, all at the same time?
I used to joke with my relatives that Blizzard must have had a long list of features/abilities and they were trying to figure out how to divide them among the races. Then they just decided to give 1 to Protoss and Zerg and just give the rest to Terran.
|
Awesome post, I really hope Blizzard starts thinking along the same lines as this. I've long wondered the same things to myself for quite a while yet without taking the time to put it in such eloquent terms.
Really the only thing that has gone towards helping Zerg as far as the swarmy building mechanics is the ability to uproot their defense structures. Protoss? Buildings are the same as SC 1 unless you count they can be powered by a fragile tier 2 flier as well as Pylons.
I feel like the axing of the Dark Obelisk for toss prior to beta was a mistake. Obviously Proton Charge was a terrible ability for it, but the other abilities added a great deal of potential depth iirc:
- It could cloak nearby units and buildings temporarily
- It could restore energy on nearby spellcasters
Oh yeah, and here's something for versatile:
-Graviton beam was on the sentry. And it could pick up buildings. But alas, blizz felt breaking the terran wall with 1 ability just wasn't fair.
Zerg well, lost the lurker and a much more interesting (though probably imbalanced) corrupter. TBH I thought the corrupter in the beta was much more interesting, since it had the overseer's building slime ability. I remember actually combining it with a muta harass to shut down missile turrets while the mutas would go to work (it stopped missile turrets and PFs from firing back then too)
Hmmm. Starting to feel like a few good ideas just didn't make it through the chopping block.
|
On December 02 2010 07:13 Dagon wrote:
Wanna bet?!
You will see overlord spreading creep to prevent expos, you will see overlord spreading creep to hide buildings or position crawlers near the front of the enemy base!
On the protoss side, you will see sentries left at random chokes to prevent enemy movement for the reminder of the game and you will see multiple nexi in one base to be able to chrono non-stop all your structures in the late game..
Just give it time.. People are creative as shit!
The problem is that the kind of thing you are talking about demand too much attention. Yeah sure it's cool to let some sentries around the map, but most of the time it will only lead to loosetime because you need to macro / micro everywhere on the map and on the same time check your sentries to make sure you don't miss the windows to put your force field down.
It will always be a "wawww" move, like some kind of move that you do once in a while.
|
On November 29 2010 14:35 Exarl25 wrote:
From a purely design point of view, Terran certainly seem more developed than Protoss or Zerg. They have more racial perks at their disposal and just feel much more fleshed out than the other two races.
As for how that translates to potential skill ceiling/balancing, I don't have a clue and I don't see how anyone else can at this point.
^This exactly. Btw great thread OP, hoping to see more love development-wise for zerg/protoss. They seem to be lacking the options Terrans have in utility. Not that its imbalanced or anything, just Terran seems to have so many more gadgets at their disposal, many of which have not been fully realised yet.
|
On December 10 2010 05:44 Stoids wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 05:41 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Sorry but I wouldn't agree with the "common sense" that Terran is the micro race. Hasn't Protoss always been considered the "micro-race" even if they don't necessarily need to micro, whatever that means? Perhaps this role is switched around in sc2, but in SC1, the idea was this
Zerg = macro, swarm (less micro)
Terran = middle, middle
Protoss = micro, less but strong units
Protoss had the least micro in BW relative to the other races. You didn't have to babysit your units as much. You could F2 back to your base pretty safely during battle. This is one of the reasons that people say that protoss was the easiest race to play in BW.
My control group of Dragoons attempting to navigate the unfathomable complexity of the Gordian knot commonly known as a "ramp" would like a word with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
